You are here: / Education-School Law
image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version
, ,

A SCHOOL FACULTY MEMBER WHO YELLED “BE QUIET” INTO A MICROPHONE, THE LOUDNESS OF WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD, DID NOT BREACH A DUTY OWED TO THE STUDENT; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school district was entitled to a directed verdict in this action which alleged plaintiff’s daughter was injured when a faculty member used a microphone to tell the students to be quiet. It was alleged loudness of the command caused injury:

In order to prevail on a negligence claim, ” ‘a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom’ “… . On appeal, defendant disputes the element of breach only. To that end, the standard to which defendant and its employees are held is “that degree of care which a reasonable [parent] of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances, commensurate with the apparent risk involved” … . Further, “[w]hen a duty exists, nonliability in a particular case may be justified on the basis that an injury is not foreseeable” … .

Although the proof at trial reflected that a school faculty member had “yelled” two words into a microphone and “was really loud” in doing so, there was no proof presented that those words were spoken in a manner or at a volume that was unreasonable, foreseeably unsafe, or in violation of any applicable standard of care. In other words, “[w]ithout knowing what is ‘too loud’,” “there [was] no standard of care by which a jury could determine on the evidence presented that defendant[] had breached a duty owed to plaintiff”… . Because there was no “rational process by which the [jury] could base a finding in favor of [plaintiff]” on the element of breach, we conclude that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict … . Joni C. v Cheektowaga-Sloan Union Free Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04859, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

/0 Comments/by
, ,

THE FACT THAT A CONTRACT DESCRIBES A PARTY AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IS NOT NECESSARILY DISPOSITIVE; DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE CONTRACT, THE COMPLAINT HERE STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the complaint stated a cause of action against the school district as the employer of a therapist, Silecchia, who allegedly injured plaintiff-student in therapy session. Although the contract between the school district and Silecchia’s employer, PBS, stated PBS was responsible for the conduct of PBS’s employees, evidence suggested some control over PBS by the district:

Although the agreement provided that all employees of the service provider, which was defined as PBS, shall be deemed as employees of the service provider for all purposes and that the service provider alone would be responsible for their work, personal conduct, direction, and compensation, “[t]he fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Other provisions in the agreement, including the scope of services provision, which provided, … that parent training services shall be in coordination with the students’ classroom teachers and/or at the direction of the District’s Committee on Special Education, provided some indication that the District may have maintained control over the method and means by which PBS, and therefore, Silecchia, were to perform the work … . D. S. v Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C., 2021 NY Slip Op 04626, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

/by
, , ,

THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant-mother’s motion to hold plaintiff-father in contempt for having the child inoculated for common childhood diseases. The separation agreement required that the parties consult each other on health decisions for the child. Father did not consult with mother before having the child inoculated. The separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit plaintiff from having the child inoculated and the parties agreed the child would attend public school, for which inoculation is required. Therefore defendant was unable to demonstrate a violation of the separation agreement which prejudiced her:

The separation agreement provided that “[t]he parties shall continue to cooperate and consult with one another to arrive at decisions which they believe are in the best interest of the [c]hild with respect to health.” Despite this language, on two occasions, the plaintiff, without first consulting with the defendant, took the child, who had not received any vaccinations since the age of two, to get vaccinated.

However, the parties’ separation agreement did not unequivocally prohibit the plaintiff from having the child inoculated. Moreover, in light of the parties’ express intention to maintain the child’s enrollment in public education, and New York State’s then newly enacted public school vaccine mandate requiring such inoculations in order for the child to continue to attend public school (see Public Health Law § 2164; C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 70), the defendant cannot demonstrate that she was prejudiced by the failure of the plaintiff to consult with her prior to having the child inoculated. Heffer v Krebs, 2021 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 7-29-21

 

/by
, ,

IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT DEMONSTRATED A STUDENT’S SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PLANTIFF WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the defendant school district demonstrated a student’s sexual assault of plaintiff was not foreseeable:

… [D]efendant met its … burden on the motion by establishing that the “sexual assault against [plaintiff by the student] was an unforeseeable act that, without sufficiently specific knowledge or notice, could not have been reasonably anticipated” … , and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Defendant’s submissions, including plaintiff’s testimony, established the undisputed fact that plaintiff and the student did not know each other and did not have any prior interactions before the sexual assault … . Although the student had an extensive and troubling disciplinary history that resulted in several detentions and suspensions, such history did not contain any infractions for physically aggressive conduct directed at other people, sexually inappropriate behavior, or threats of physical or sexual violence … .

… [W]hile the student’s history involved attendance issues, insubordination toward school staff, inappropriate verbal outbursts, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, possession and sale of drugs, and academic problems, that history did not raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the injury-causing conduct inasmuch as it was not similar to the student’s physically and sexually aggressive behavior that injured plaintiff … . “More significantly, [the student’s] prior history did not include any sexually aggressive behavior” … . We also agree with defendant that the court impermissibly drew an unsubstantiated and speculative inference that the student’s disclosure to a school social worker about being a victim of sexual abuse during his childhood, coupled with his substance abuse, should have provided defendant with notice of the student’s propensity to commit sexual assault … . Knaszak v Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04441, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF’S CHILD ALLEGEDLY WAS INJURED DURING SCHOOL RECESS; PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE CHILD FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the failure to produce the child (who allegedly was injured at school recess) for the General Municipal Law 50-h hearing required dismissal of the complaint:

“As General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) makes clear on its face, compliance with a municipality’s demand for a section 50-h examination is a condition precedent to commencing an action against that municipality” … . “A claimant’s failure to comply with such a demand generally warrants dismissal of the action”… . “Requiring claimants to comply with section 50-h before commencing an action augments the statute’s purpose, which ‘is to afford the [municipality] an opportunity to early investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident and to explore the merits of the claim, while information is readily available, with a view towards settlement’ ” … . ” ‘The failure to submit to . . . an examination [pursuant to section 50-h], however, may be excused in exceptional circumstances, such as extreme physical or psychological incapacity’ ” … .

Here, “[b]y refusing to produce for an examination under General Municipal Law § 50-h the minor child on whose behalf they are suing, plaintiffs failed to comply with a condition precedent to commencing the action . . . Nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances so as to excuse their noncompliance”  … . Jeffrey T.C. v Grand Is. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04427, Fourth Dept 7-16-21

 

/by
,

14-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF COLLIDING WITH RETRACTED BLEACHERS DURING A BASKETBALL PRACTICE DRILL IN WHICH BOUNDARY LINES WERE TO BE IGNORED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision case should have been granted. The 14-year-old plaintiff was participating in a basketball practice drill in which the boundary lines of the court were to be ignored. When plaintiff attempted to retrieve a ball that went over the boundary line she was pushed into the retracted bleachers. The Third Department held plaintiff assumed the risk of injury during that form of practice:

“The primary assumption of risk doctrine . . . encompasses risks involving less than optimal conditions” … . The opinion of plaintiff’s expert that the drill could have been safer by utilizing the boundary lines of the basketball court and having more space was insufficient to raise an issue of fact given that the failure to do so did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the drill or playing basketball … . Plaintiff’s expert likewise failed to cite to any specific industry standard violated by defendants … . Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that the boundary lines of the basketball court acted as, or were intended to be, a safety mechanism to prevent a player’s collision with the bleachers. Because plaintiff did not satisfy her burden, defendants’ motion should have been granted … . Secky v New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 04071, Second Dept 6-24-21

 

/by
,

CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Education was required to provide random COVID-19 testing to city-resident students in charter schools, but not to charter-school staff or to nonparty charter schools:

… Supreme Court erred in directing the City to provide Covid testing not only to children but also to charter school staff, and charter schools which are not parties to this proceeding. Section 912 by its terms directs the school district to provide covered services to “resident children who attend” nonpublic schools, to the same extent such services are provided to children attending public schools (Education Law § 912). The statute does not require that such services be provided to staff or anyone else other than resident children. Accordingly, we modify the judgment, to limit relief to children attending petitioners’ charter schools, and not to children attending nonparty charter schools, nor to staff at any school. Matter of King v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 04083, First Dept 6-24-21

 

/by
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PERSONNEL PROPERLY INSTRUCTED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE USE OF THE ZIP LINE FROM WHICH SHE ALLEGEDY FELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school’s motion for summary judgment in this negligence supervision case should not have been granted. The infant plaintiff, C.G., allegedly was injured when she fell of a zip line. The were questions of fact about whether C.G. was properly instructed on the use of zip line:

“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” … “A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent” … . The duty to provide adequate supervision includes the duty to instruct students as to the safe use of playground equipment …

As the plaintiff correctly contends, the defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether C. G. was adequately instructed on the safe use of the zip line prior to her fall and whether the instruction that students were allowed to have another student “give them a head start push” across the zip line was appropriate. Genova v Town of Clarkstown, 2021 NY Slip Op 03444, Second Dept 6-2-21

 

/by
,

ALL EIGHT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXAMINED VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRMENT TO PROVIDE A SOUND EDUCATION TO THE AT-RISK STUDENT POPULATIONS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, determined the plaintiffs established a violation of the constitutional requirement to provide a sound education to the at-risk student population in all of the school districts named in the action—Jamestown, Kingston, Mount Vernon, Newburgh, Niagara Falls, Port Jervis, Poughkeepsie, and Utica:

… [P]laintiffs in this case have demonstrated a … set of coalescing circumstances with respect to the at-risk student population in the subject school districts sufficient to establish a constitutional violation. Each of the subject school districts had a high percentage of at-risk students during the stipulated academic years — those who came from impoverished backgrounds, had disabilities, or whose primary language was one other than English. The compelling evidence demonstrated that, in order to place a sound basic education within the reach of such students, they require early interventions, more time on task and other supplemental programming, as well as support from adequate numbers of guidance counselors, social workers or other similar professionals. Despite these enhanced needs, the districts lacked a combined total of over $1.1 billion in funding … , necessitating further cuts to already diminished staff and essential services. Most unfortunately, the performance of the students in these districts suffered as a result. Working from the premise … that all children can succeed when given appropriate instructional, social and health services, we find — based upon the evidence of inadequate inputs, poor outputs and a causal connection to defendant’s school financing system — that plaintiffs have established a constitutional violation with respect to the at-risk student population in each of the subject school districts. Maisto v State of New York, 2021 NY Slip Op 03350, Third Dept 5-27-21

 

/by
, ,

PLAINTIFF BROUGHT A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A GUIDANCE COUNSELOR IN THE 1980’S; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFF’S SUIT TO GO FORWARD UNDER A PSEUDONYM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Smith, determined Supreme Court properly allowed plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym in her personal injury action against the school district and an individual defendant pursuant to the Child Victims Act (CBA). Plaintiff alleged she was sexually abused in the 1980’s by a guidance counselor at her high school:

… [P]laintiff alleged that she was employed by the county in which these allegations arose, that her job may be in jeopardy as a result of the allegations, and that she experienced “emotional distress, suicidal thoughts, depression, anxiety, feelings of worthlessness, and many other psychological damages, painful feelings, emotions, nightmares, flashbacks, as well as physical manifestations of these problems” that would recur if her name was publicized.

… [T]he record establishes that plaintiff has disclosed her name to defendants, thereby minimizing any prejudice arising from her use of a pseudonym for the purposes of discovery and investigation, and defendants have not asserted any other prejudice that they will sustain therefrom. An additional factor supporting the court’s determination is that plaintiff did not seek, nor did the court order, that the records in the case be sealed or that public access be denied. Thus, the public’s interest in open court proceedings is preserved … . Although the School and defendant Amherst Central School District are governmental entities, which supports plaintiff’s position, defendant John Koch … is an individual, which favors defendants’ position. Thus, there is no clear advantage to either side with respect to that factor. PB-7 Doe v Amherst Cent. Sch. Dist., 2021 NY Slip Op 02969, Fourth Dept 5-7-21

 

/by

Categories

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

Copyright © 2021 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy