You are here: / Education-School Law
, ,

NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BROUGHT BY A STUDENT WITH SPECIAL NEEDS WHO LEFT SCHOOL AND ATTEMPTED SUICIDE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligence and negligent supervision, hiring, training and retention causes of action against the school district should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff is a special needs student who had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The infant plaintiff left school, went home and attempted suicide. The school district argued plaintiffs did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the IDEA. The Second Department held that the negligence causes of action were not subject to the administrative requirements of the IDEA:

“An IEP is developed jointly by a school official, the child’s teacher and parents, and, where appropriate, the child. It details the special needs of a disabled child and the services which are to be provided to serve the individual needs of that child” … . Because parents and school officials sometimes cannot agree on such issues, the IDEA establishes formal administrative procedures for resolving disputes… . If a parent is dissatisfied with the outcome after having exhausted the IDEA’s administrative remedies, the parent may then seek judicial review by filing a civil action in state or federal court… . The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement is not limited to actions brought explicitly pursuant to the IDEA. 20 USC § 1415(l) states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter.”

Here, the complaint alleges only common-law causes of action to recover damages for, inter alia, negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, training, and retention, and loss of consortium. Thus, the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative remedies before commencing the instant action … . Matter of P.S. v Pleasantville Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00282, Second Dept 1-16-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S WHISTEBLOWER ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALLEGING THE DISTRICT TOOK RETALIATORY ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF MADE AGAINST ANOTHER DISTRICT EMPLOYEE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Civil Service Law 75-b action alleging disciplinary action against him was taken in retaliation for his reporting certain allegations about another school district employee should not have been dismissed. Defendant school district notified plaintiff, the district’s head bus driver, he was charged with a conflict of interest in violation of General Business Law 800 the day after plaintiff had made the allegations against the employee in front of the Board of Education.  Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s whistleblower action by finding the General Municipal Law 800 conflict of interest charge, not plaintiff’s allegations against the employee, constituted the basis for the district’s disciplinary action against plaintiff:

Supreme Court … erred in the substantive application of Civil Service Law § 75-b relative to defendants’ contention that an independent basis existed for placing plaintiff on administrative leave. To assert a whistleblower claim under Civil Service Law § 75-b, plaintiff must allege, “(1) an adverse personnel action; (2) disclosure of information to a governmental body (a) regarding a violation of a law, rule, or regulation that endangers public health or safety, or (b) which [the plaintiff] reasonably believes to be true and which [he or] she reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action; and (3) a causal connection between the disclosure and the adverse personnel action”… . The element of causation requires “that ‘but for’ the protected activity, the adverse personnel action by the public employer would not have occurred”… . Here, the court found that the purported General Municipal Law violation sufficed as a separate and independent basis for the adverse action and dismissed plaintiff’s claim. However, even assuming that the General Municipal Law violation is ultimately demonstrated, the trial court must make “a separate determination regarding the employer’s motivation” to ensure against pretextual dismissals and “shield employees from being retaliated against by an employer’s selective application of theoretically neutral rules” … . Lilley v Greene Cent. Sch. Dist., 2019 NY Slip Op 00019, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

, ,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED BY ANOTHER STUDENT ON A PRIVATE BUS TAKING THE CHILD HOME FROM SCHOOL, CERTAIN NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SURVIVED A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND TRAINING CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, TWO DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS NO LONGER IN THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL WHEN THE ABUSE OCCURRED ON THE BUS (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined certain negligence causes of action against the school properly survived a pre-answer motion to dismiss. Infant plaintiff, a special needs student, was allegedly sexually abused by another student on a private bus which provided transportation from the school under a contract with the city. All the justices agreed that the negligent hiring, supervision and training causes of action were properly dismissed because the relevant employees were alleged to have been acting within the scope of their employment, rendering the employer liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The dissenters argued that the child was no longer in the custody of the school when the child was on the private bus:

From the Dissent: “[A] school has a duty of care while children are in its physical custody or orbit of authority” (Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 87 NY2d 370, 378 [1995]), which generally “does not extend beyond school premises”… . A school continues to have a duty of care to a child released from its physical custody or orbit of authority only under certain narrow circumstances, specifically, where the school “releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating” (Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. Sch. Dist., 93 NY2d 664, 672 [1999], rearg denied 93 NY2d 1042 [1999]… ).

In determining that the sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth causes of action adequately set forth a cognizable theory of negligence, the majority effectively ignores the language in Ernest limiting a school’s duty of care to instances where “it releases a child without further supervision”… . Those circumstances do not exist here inasmuch as the child was released to the care of the bus company, which was then responsible for the “further supervision” of the child (id.). The majority also ignores the precedent set by Chainani, which states that a school that has “contracted-out responsibility for transportation” to a private bus company “cannot be held liable on a theory that the children were in [the school’s] physical custody at the time of injury” … . Therefore, defendants’ duty of care ended when the child was released to the physical custody of the bus company, especially where, as here, the bus company was hired by the City and had no contractual relationship with the School. Brown v First Student, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08776, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

,

THE DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS ACT (DASA) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR IN-SCHOOL BULLYING AND HARASSMENT (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Brahwaite Nelson, determined that the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA, Education Law section 10) does not create a private right of action for a student injured by a school’s failure to enforce policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. The plaintiffs alleged Joshua, a student, was bullied and the complaint, in addition to alleging a violation of DASA, alleged negligent supervision and negligent retention of employees. The negligence causes of action properly survived the motions to dismiss:

A private right of action “may be fairly implied when (1) the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose of the governing statute; and (3) to do so would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … . …

A review of DASA’s legislative history shows that finding a private right of action under the act would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. As noted above, DASA requires school districts to create and implement certain policies, procedures, and guidelines aimed at creating an educational environment in which children can thrive free of discrimination and harassment (see Education Law §§ 10, 13). In a letter to the Governor, Senator Thomas Duane described DASA as focusing “on the education and prevention of harassment and discrimination before it begins rather than punishment after the fact” …  The letter stated that under the existing regime, school districts were paying “a high cost in civil damages for failure to prevent bullying,” thereby suggesting that implementing DASA would alleviate such costs (id. at 9). Similarly, the Assembly sponsor of the bill also advised the Governor that “the Legislature intends [DASA] to be primarily a preventive, rather than punitive, measure; it should therefore be implemented accordingly, with the emphasis on proactive techniques such as training and early intervention to prevent discrimination and harassment” … . Eskenazi-McGibney v Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 08467, Second Dept 12-12-18

 

,

AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, confirmed the college’s determination to expel petitioner, a student accused of sexual misconduct in violation of the student code:

… [T]he Court of Appeals agreed with us “that petitioner’s due process arguments were not preserved at the administrative level” … . To the extent that petitioner’s procedural claims go beyond those arguments, they are also unpreserved due to him either failing to raise them at the administrative hearing when they could have been corrected or failing to raise them altogether … . We accordingly focus upon the penalty of expulsion recommended by SUNY’s Appellate Board and imposed by respondent Kristen Esterberg, SUNY’s president.

Petitioner may not have been aware of the fact when he took an administrative appeal from a decision of the Hearing Board that suspended him for a semester, but the Appellate Board was empowered by article IX (C) of the student code of conduct to “alter the sanctions imposed” and punish him with “any of the [available] sanctions,” including more severe ones. Article IX misstates the student code of conduct sections dealing with the jurisdiction of the Appellate Board and the permissible sanctions, but a review of the pertinent provisions leaves no doubt that those misstatements were drafting errors that may be disregarded… . The Appellate Board chose one of the available remedies by recommending expulsion and, while no explanation was offered as to why it did so, the student code of conduct did not require one. Esterberg adopted the recommendation. Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. At Potsdam, 2018 NY Slip Op 08208, Third Dept 11-29-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGE DISCIPLINE, AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGE DISCIPLINE, AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (COLLEGES,  AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE EXPULSION OF PETITIONER STUDENT FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE COLLEGE’S STUDENT CODE CONFIRMED, COLLEGE APPEALS BOARD HAD THE POWER TO IMPOSE ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY INCLUDING EXPULSION (THIRD DEPT))

,

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision, student injury case should not have been granted. Infant plaintiff was playing touch football during recess in a designated area near the playground. The student was injured when, outside the designated area, he dove to catch the ball and struck a piece of playground equipment:

… [T]he defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the risk of colliding into the playground equipment located near the edge of the field was inherent in the activity of playing touch football on the field. Although the risks inherent in a sport include those “associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it” … , the playground equipment was not a part of the football field or related to the game… . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their alleged negligent supervision in permitting the students to play football near the playground did not “create[ ] a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport” … . In addition, while the infant plaintiff was a willing participant in the game, in light of his age, it cannot presently be determined as a matter of law that he was aware of and appreciated the risks involved in the activity in which he was engaged … .

Further, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff’s accident occurred in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, thereby negating any alleged lack of supervision as the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . Rather, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff “was participating in a prohibited activity for an extended period of time and more intense supervision may have prevented the accident” … . M.P. v Mineola Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 08119, Second Dept 11-28-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DURING RECESS WHEN, PLAYING FOOTBALL OUTSIDE THE DESIGNATED FOOTBALL AREA, HE DOVE FOR THE BALL AND STRUCK A PIECE OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the stipulation signed by plaintiff teacher, who agreed to resign in return for discontinuing the disciplinary hearing, was binding under contract principles, despite the inapplicability of CPLR 2104 to administrative proceedings. After signing the stipulation, plaintiff changed his mind:

In the stipulation, DOE (Department of Education] agreed to discontinue the disciplinary hearing on the pending misconduct charges and to take no further disciplinary action against plaintiff, in exchange for which plaintiff agreed “to irrevocably retire from his employment with [DOE] … .” The agreement was signed by plaintiff, his counsel, and DOE’s counsel … . Annexed to the stipulation was a letter signed by plaintiff and addressed to District Superintendent Karen Watts stating, “I hereby irrevocably retire from [DOE] … .” The stipulation contained a signature line for Superintendent Watts, who signed it several days later.

Before Superintendent Watts signed the stipulation, plaintiff notified DOE that he had changed his mind and wanted to rescind the stipulation. He argues that the stipulation was unenforceable when he changed his mind because not all the parties had signed it. …

Although CPLR 2104 is not applicable to agreements entered into in administrative proceedings, the stipulation signed by plaintiff and counsel acting on behalf of DOE is binding under general contract principles … . Plaintiff failed to show the existence of fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, or that counsel lacked DOE’s consent to enter into the stipulation … . Plaintiff’s agreement to retire was irrevocable, and plaintiff understood its consequences. His change of mind is not a cause sufficient to set aside his agreement … . Nor is his parol evidence, offered to show that the parties did not intend to be bound by the stipulation until Superintendent Watts had signed it, admissible to add to or vary the terms of the writing … . Matter of Nobile v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08065, First Dept 11-27-18

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 2104  (ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this playground student injury case should have been granted. Defendants demonstrated there was an adequate number of monitors supervising the children, infant plaintiff was using the equipment properly, and the equipment was in good working order. There was no showing that plaintiffs’ expert had any expertise re: playground equipment. Infant plaintiff slipped off a bar and fell because his hands were wet:

The defendants submitted evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the level of supervision afforded to the infant plaintiff and the other students at the time of the accident was adequate… , and, in any event, that any alleged lack of supervision was not the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries … . Furthermore, the defendants submitted a report and affidavit from their expert, which established that the playground equipment was appropriate for the infant plaintiff’s age group, and was not defective … .

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from their purported expert, there was no showing that the purported expert had any specialized knowledge, experience, training, or education regarding playground equipment so as to qualify him to render an opinion in this area … . Ponzini v Sag Harbor Union Free Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 08046, Second Dept 11-21-18

NEGLIGENCE (NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION, NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION, NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION, NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (EXPERT OPINION, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION, NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (NEGLIGENCE,  EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION, NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OFFERED BY CHARTER SCHOOLS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PURE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION’S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissenting opinion, determined that school districts do not have the authority to oversee pre-kindergarten programs offered by charter schools. The court noted that deference to the Commissioner of Education’s contrary finding was not required because the question is one of pure statutory interpretation:

Charter schools are listed among the various eligible providers under the Statewide Universal Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten Program. Unlike other providers, however, charter schools are separately governed by the New York Charter Schools Act, and all “monitoring, programmatic review and operational requirements” related to charter school pre-kindergarten programs are “the responsibility of the charter entity” and must be “consistent with the requirements” of the Charter Schools Act (Education Law § 3602-ee [12]). The issue before us is whether the statutory scheme governing charter school pre-kindergarten programs allows for shared oversight authority between charter entities and local school districts. We hold that it does not … . * * *

According to [the appellate division, affirmed here by the Court of Appeals], the Legislature’s use of the word “all” in subdivision 12 provide the charter entity “with full responsibility for the relevant monitoring, programmatic review and operational requirements’ for the relevant prekindergarten programs” and that the plain meaning of this provision “in no way indicates that another entity — such as a school district — holds concurrent responsibility or authority in this regard” (… quoting Education Law § 3602-ee [12]). This reading, in the Appellate Division’s view, “best harmonizes the provisions of the statute in a manner consistent with the Legislature’s announced purpose” of Universal Pre-K Law which was ” to encourage program creativity through competition'” (… quoting Education Law § 3602-ee [1]). The Court also determined that the plain meaning of the term “inspection” did not include a right to regulate the curriculum (id.; see Education Law § 3602-ee [10]). The Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Commissioner, given that “the Commissioner’s determination regarding Success Academy’s request for funding was affected by its erroneous interpretation of” Universal Pre-K Law” … . Matter of DeVera v Elia, 2018 NY Slip Op 07922, CtApp 11-20-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OFFERED BY CHARTER SCHOOLS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PURE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION’S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED (CT APP))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OFFERED BY CHARTER SCHOOLS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PURE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION’S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED (CT APP))/PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS (SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OFFERED BY CHARTER SCHOOLS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PURE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION’S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED (CT APP))/CHARTER SCHOOLS, PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS, (SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERSEE PRE-KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS OFFERED BY CHARTER SCHOOLS, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PURE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION’S CONTRARY CONCLUSION IS NOT REQUIRED (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF STUDENT INJURED WHEN GYMNASIUM DOOR CLOSED ON HIS FINGER, INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR TORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff student’s negligent supervision cause of action against the city and the school district was properly dismissed. The city cannot be liable for the torts of the Department of Education. The student was injured when the gymnasium door closed on his finger. Negligent supervision was not the proximate cause of the injuries because the injury happened so fast. The theory that the door was defective was not included in the notice of claim and could not be raised to defeat summary judgment:

Although schools have a duty to provide supervision to ensure the safety of those in their charge … , schools will be held liable only for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision … . When an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of the DOE’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligent supervision cause of action by establishing that any alleged inadequacy in the level of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident … . …

The plaintiffs’ allegation that the subject door was negligently maintained does not defeat the defendants’ motion. Since this theory of liability was not included in the notice of claim or the complaint … , and there was nothing in the notice of claim that would provide notice to the defendants about this allegation … , it does not raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not seek leave to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e … . K.B. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07710, Second Dept 11-14-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, PLAINTIFF STUDENT INJURED WHEN GYMNASIUM DOOR CLOSED ON HIS FINGER, INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR TORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PLAINTIFF STUDENT INJURED WHEN GYMNASIUM DOOR CLOSED ON HIS FINGER, INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR TORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, PLAINTIFF STUDENT INJURED WHEN GYMNASIUM DOOR CLOSED ON HIS FINGER, INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR TORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM  (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, PLAINTIFF STUDENT INJURED WHEN GYMNASIUM DOOR CLOSED ON HIS FINGER, INADEQUATE SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR TORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT INCLUDE ALLEGATION THAT THE DOOR WAS DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT))

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