You are here: / BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S...

Search Results

/ , ,

BARE ALLEGATIONS THAT A SCHOOL KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF A TEACHER’S PROPENSITY TO ABUSE STUDENTS, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS, ARE NOT ENOUGH TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENT RETENTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case against a school (Central Yeshiva), determined the complaint did not state causes of action for negligence or negligent retention of the teacher (Charitonov) who allegedly sexually abused the plaintiff. Bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse are not enough to avoid dismissal:

Here, the complaint failed to state causes of action alleging negligence and negligent retention, supervision, and direction against Central Yeshiva, as the complaint did not sufficiently plead that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity to commit the alleged wrongful acts and failed to provide any factual allegations from which it could be inferred that Central Yeshiva had prior notice of similar conduct at its dormitory … . The complaint merely asserted bare legal conclusions that Central Yeshiva knew or should have known of Charitonov’s propensity for improper conduct without providing any factual allegations that Charitonov’s abuse of the plaintiff was foreseeable … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate any basis to allow him to conduct discovery prior to directing dismissal of those causes of action (see CPLR 3211[d] …). Doe v Educational Inst. Oholei Torah, 2025 NY Slip Op 00948, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: In a Child Victims Act case against a school stemming from the abuse of a child by a teacher, bare allegations that the school knew or should have known of the teacher’s propensity for abuse do not state a cause of action for negligence or negligent retention. The complaint must include supporting factual allegations.

 

/ , ,

WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action was subject to a three-year, not a six-year, statute of limitations and was time-barred:

“‘New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims'” … . Rather, “[t]he statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought” … . Generally, “[a] cause of action [alleging] breach of fiduciary duty is governed by a six-year statute of limitations where the relief sought is equitable in nature (see CPLR 213[1]), or by a three-year statute of limitations where the only relief sought is money damages (see CPLR 214[4])” … . “Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” … . “The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … . Berejka v Huntington Med. Group, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 00942, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where the relief sought for breach of fiduciary duty is equitable, or where fraud is an essential element, the applicable statute of limitations is six years. Where the only relief sought is money damages, the applicable statute of limitations in three years.

 

/ ,

WHERE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE BY A COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE, RESTORATION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR IS AUTOMATIC WHERE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED AND THERE HAD BEEN NO COURT-ORDERED DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to restore the action to the active calendar should have been granted. Although plaintiff had failed to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, no 90-day notice had been served nor had the court ordered dismissal of the action:

“When a plaintiff has failed to file a note of issue by a court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic, unless either a 90-day notice has been served pursuant to CPLR 3216 or there has been an order directing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27” … . “In the absence of those two circumstances, the court need not consider whether the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue” … . Adams v Frankel, 2025 NY Slip Op 00939, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where plaintiff fails to fails to file a note of issue by the court-ordered deadline, restoration of the action to the active calendar is automatic where no 90-day notice has been served and dismissal has not been ordered by the court.

 

/

THE TEN-YEAR LOOKBACK FOR A PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES IS TOLLED BY PRESENTENCE, AS WELL AS POST-SENTENCE, INCARCERATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined the ten-year lookback for a persistent violent felony offender designation is tolled by any presentence period of incarceration:

A person convicted of a violent felony offense is a “persistent violent felony offender” for sentencing purposes if that person has “two or more predicate violent felony convictions” (Penal Law § 70.08 [1] [a], [b]). Those potentially qualifying felony convictions must satisfy the timing requirement set forth in Penal Law § 70.04, namely that the sentence on the prior crime must have been imposed not more than ten years before the commission of the current felony (Penal Law § 70.04 [1] [b] [iv]). This ten-year lookback period is extended by any period of incarceration between commission of the prior felony and commission of the current felony (Penal Law § 70.04 [1] [b] [v]). Defendant challenges any extension of the ten-year lookback period using time he spent in presentence incarceration on his earliest qualifying felony conviction. We now hold that pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04, defendant’s presentence incarceration time did extend the ten-year period and therefore defendant was properly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender. People v Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 00904, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: The ten-year lookback for a persistent violent felony offender designation is tolled by both presentence and post-sentence incarceration.

 

/ , , , ,

A MUNICIPALITY OWES A CHILD IT PLACES IN FOSTER CARE A SPECIAL DUTY SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN BE LIABLE FOR A NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT WHICH LEADS TO FORESEEABLE HARM TO THE CHILD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Troutman, over a two-judge dissenting opinion, determined a municipality owes a child placed in foster care a special duty, such that the municipality, although performing a governmental function, can be liable for negligent placement of a child:

Today we hold that municipalities owe a duty of care to the children the municipalities place in foster homes because the municipalities have assumed custody of those children. As a result, we reverse the decision of the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff, formerly a child in foster care, commenced this action pursuant to the Child Victims Act (see CPLR 214-g) against defendant Cayuga County and “Does 1-10,” who she alleged were “persons or entities with responsibilities for [p]laintiff’s safety, supervision and/or placement in foster care.” According to the complaint, the County placed plaintiff in foster care in 1974, when she was three months old. While in the foster home selected by the County, plaintiff allegedly suffered horrific abuse. Plaintiff alleged that her foster parent sexually abused her over the course of approximately seven years, beginning when she was 18 months old and continuing until she was eight years old. The foster parent allegedly coerced plaintiff’s compliance with the sexual abuse by inflicting severe physical abuse, resulting in plaintiff sustaining broken bones and a head wound. * * *

By assuming legal custody over the foster child, the applicable government official steps in as the sole legal authority responsible for determining who has daily control over the child’s life … . We thus hold that a municipality owes a duty to a foster child over whom it has assumed legal custody to guard the child from “foreseeable risks of harm” arising from the child’s placement with the municipality’s choice of foster parent … . Weisbrod-Moore v Cayuga County, 2025 NY Slip Op 00903, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: A municipality generally is not liable for injury resulting from the exercise of a governmental function absent a special duty owed to the injured party. Resolving a split of authority, here the Court of Appeals held a municipality owes a special duty to a child it places in foster care.

 

/ ,

THE ETHICS COMMISSION REFORM ACT OF 2022, WHICH VESTS A COMMISSION WITH THE POWER TO INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE ETHICS AND LOBBYING LAWS WITH RESPECT TO ELECTED OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES OF THE LEGISLATURE, STATE OFFICERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, CURRENT AND FORMER CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, AND LOBBYISTS (AMONG OTHERS), DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissent, determined the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 did not unconstitutionally vest the State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government with executive power. The Act is not unconstitutional:

The issue on this appeal is whether, on its face, the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 unconstitutionally vests the State Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government with executive power. Plaintiff’s principal argument is that because the Commission exercises executive power, the Governor must have power to appoint and remove the Commissioners. In New York, however, the Legislature—not the Governor—may ordinarily define the terms on which non-constitutional state officers may be appointed and removed. Moreover, the Legislature structured the Commission to address a narrow but crucial gap arising from the inherent disincentive for the Executive Branch to investigate and discipline itself, which has serious consequences for public confidence in government. The Act does not displace the Executive Branch to accomplish that goal; instead, it confers upon an independent agency power to enforce a narrow set of laws, thus mitigating the unique danger of self-regulation. The Act addresses a threat to the legitimacy of government itself with an extraordinary response. While the Act extends very close to the boundary of permissible legislation, it is not “intrinsically a constitutional affront to the separation of powers doctrine” … . * * *

The Legislature … enacted … the Ethics Commission Reform Act of 2022 (the Act), which amended Executive Law § 94 and replaced JCOPE [Judicial Commission on Public Ethics] with the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government. Like JCOPE, the Commission is established in the Department of State and charged with the investigation and enforcement of the ethics and lobbying laws … . Those under the Commission’s jurisdiction include statewide elected officials; members and employees of the Legislature; certain statutorily defined state officers and employees; current and former candidates for statewide office, Senate, and Assembly; the political party chair; and current and former lobbyists and their clients … . The Commission also enforces financial disclosure requirements and reviews disclosure forms of statewide elected officials, their officers and employees and other persons subject to disclosure under Public Officers Law 73-a … . As part of its specific grant of authority under the Act, the Commission has rulemaking power to “adopt, amend and rescind any rules and regulations pertaining to” Public Officers Law § 73 (concerning official ethics), Public Officers Law § 73-a (financial disclosure), Legislative Law Article 1-a (lobbying) and Civil Service Law § 107 (political activities and contributions) (Executive Law § 94 [5] [a]). With respect to members and employees of the Legislature, the Commission’s powers are limited: the Commission may investigate such persons but must refer any potential violations of the ethics laws to the legislative ethics commission … . Cuomo v New York State Commn. on Ethics & Lobbying in Govt., 2025 NY Slip Op 00902, CtApp 2-18-25

 

/ , ,

THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO STEAL TWO CANS OF RED BULL WHEN HE ENTERED THE CVS; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE EVIDENCE OF FELONY BURGLARY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, NOTING THAT THE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE CHARGED PETTY LARCENY OR TRESPASS, THEREBY SAVING THE STATE THE MILLION DOLLARS IT COST TO INCARCERATE THE HOMELESS, MENTALLY ILL AND DRUG-ADDICTED DEFENDANT FOR AN ATTEMPT TO STEAL ITEMS WORTH $6 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s burglary conviction rejecting the “legally insufficient evidence” argument. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Wilson (Judge Halligan concurring), argued the evidence was legally insufficient. Judge Wilson wrote “no evidence in the case could have led a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to steal the two Red Bulls” when he entered the CVS:

From the dissent:

Two cans of Red Bull cost about $6. Seven years of incarceration costs anywhere between $800,000 and $4 million, depending on the location within New York State … . For attempting to take two cans of Red Bull from a CVS, Raymond Williams was convicted of third-degree burglary, a felony, and sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison. Mr. Williams was a perpetual petty shoplifter with substance abuse and mental health problems, so perhaps this result makes sense to someone. It does not to me.

Mr. Williams’s story is not uncommon. For much of his life, he has struggled with homelessness and drug addiction. Both factors disproportionately increase the risk of being caught up in the criminal justice system and sentenced to spend time in prison. Mr. Williams had previously been found guilty of many minor shoplifting offenses, including from other CVS stores. His problems were addressed by sentences of incarceration and probation, not treatment. * * *

Putting both psychiatric and fiscal wisdom aside, although it was within the discretion of prosecutors to charge Mr. Williams with felony burglary instead of, for example, petty larceny or trespass, the trial evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of burglary. No evidence in the case could have led a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams intended to steal the two Red Bulls. I would therefore reverse his conviction. People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 00901, CtApp 2-18-25

Practice Point: Consult the dissent for a strong argument for prosecutorial discretion in shoplifting cases, especially where the defendant is homeless, mentally ill and addicted to drugs. Here the defendant was sentenced to three and a half to seven years in prison for attempting to steal two cans of Red Bull from a CVS (burglary third).

 

/ , ,

ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the action should not have been dismissed because it was in the form of a proceeding rather than an action. Supreme Court should have converted the proceeding into the proper form:

The petitioner commenced this purported proceeding by the filing of an order to show cause and a petition, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice. In opposition to the order to show cause and the petition, the respondent submitted an affirmation of counsel, in which counsel argued, among other things, that the proceeding should be dismissed because it was not brought in the proper form. The Supreme Court conducted a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, the court issued a judgment, in effect, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

Although this matter was improperly commenced in the form of a proceeding instead of an action, dismissal is not required. “Pursuant to CPLR 103(c), a proceeding should not be dismissed ‘solely because it is not brought in the proper form,’ and the court has the power to convert a proceeding into the proper form” … . Accordingly, we convert this proceeding into an action, inter alia, for injunctive relief and to recover damages for medical malpractice, with the order to show cause deemed to be the summons and the petition deemed to be the complaint (see CPLR 103[c] …), and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to afford the respondent an opportunity to serve and file an answer within 20 days of service upon it of this decision and order with notice of entry … . Matter of Robinson v NYU Langone Hosps., 2025 NY Slip Op 00870, Second Dept 2-13-25

Practice Point: A proceeding brought in the wrong form can be converted to the proper form by the court pursuant to CPLR 103 (c).

 

/ , ,

THE REGULATIONS WHICH PLACE A CAP ON THE NUMBER OF SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL PERSONS WHO CAN BE ADMITTED TO A LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, determined the regulations putting a cap on the number of seriously mentally ill persons who can be accepted by a long-term care facility did not facially discriminate against persons with disabilities:

The State of New York’s Department of Health (DOH) licenses certain facilities known as “adult homes” to provide “long-term care, room, board, housekeeping, personal care and supervision to five or more adults unrelated to the operator” (Dept of Health Regs [18 NYCRR] § 485.2 [b]). Regulations promulgated by DOH provide that an adult home may not admit additional residents with serious mental illness if it has a capacity of 80 or more beds and its resident population is over 25% persons with serious mental illness … . Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc., an adult home subject to this admissions cap, claims that those regulations discriminate against persons with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHAA), which extended the protections of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to persons with disabilities (see 42 USC § 3604 [f] [1]-[2]). We conclude that plaintiff has failed to establish that the challenged regulations facially discriminate against persons with disabilities, and therefore affirm. Matter of Oceanview Home for Adults, Inc. v Zucker, 2025 NY Slip Op 00805, CtApp 2-13-25

 

/ ,

HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, affirming defendant’s conviction. over a three-judge concurring opinion, determined that an alleged prior inconsistent statement made by the robbery victim, the only fact witness, offered at trial solely for impeachment, did not render the evidence legally insufficient. Neither the memorandum decision nor the concurring opinion discusses the underlying facts:

The victim, who was the sole person to testify about the facts concerning defendant’s conviction of robbery in the third degree, gave a statement to police, through an interpreter, several hours after the alleged robbery that was inconsistent on a material element of the offense with his trial testimony. That statement was introduced through the officer’s testimony at trial, solely for the purpose of impeachment. When an alleged contradictory prior statement is admitted solely for the purpose of impeachment, the rule of People v Ledwon (153 NY 10 [1897]) and People v Jackson (65 NY2d 265 [1985]) is not implicated. The evidence was legally sufficient to support the inference that defendant intended to steal property forcibly … . People v Howard, 2025 NY Slip Op 00804, CtApp 2-13-25

Practice Point: Here a prior inconsistent statement by the robbery victim, the only fact witness at trial, did not render the evidence legally insufficient.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy