You are here: / Education-School Law
, , ,

PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner, a private residential school for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Center for Discovery), had exhausted its administrative remedies in seeking reimbursement from the NYC Department of Education for providing 24-hour care for a student with autism (pursuant to an Individualized Education Plan or IEP). The matter was therefore sent back to Supreme Court. The First Department noted that, although estoppel is usually not available in an action against a governmental agency, it may be appropriate here based upon the respondent’s alleged promise to reimburse petitioner and petitioner’s reliance on that promise:

… [W]e disagree that the doctrine of “exhaustion of remedies” precludes review of this case… .

A “final and binding” determination is one where the agency “reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury,” and the injury may not be “significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party” … .

Respondent reached a definitive position concerning reimbursement for the additional services mandated by the amended IEP that inflicted concrete injury on petitioner. Counsel’s … email clearly stated that the City would not be reimbursing petitioner for the additional services mandated by the amended IEP. Petitioner had no available means of seeking review of respondent’s decision from respondent or any other City or State agency empowered to review, overturn, or reverse the City’s determination concerning reimbursement for the services explicitly mandated by the City in the amended IEP. The email was thus the “final” determination of respondent City on the issue … . …

Petitioner … alleges that it relied on respondent’s representation that it would be reimbursed for the additional services mandated and provided under the amended IEP. While estoppel is generally not available in an action against a government agency, this case presents a factual dispute as to the applicability of the doctrine that must be determined upon remand … . Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v NYC Dept. of Educ., 2018 NY Slip Op 03494, First Dept 5-15-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))/ESTOPPEL (MUNICIPAL LAW, PETITIONER, A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN, HAD EXHAUSTED ITS ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR 24-HOUR CARE FOR A STUDENT WITH AUTISM, MATTER REMITTED WITH INSTRUCTION THAT THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON A PROMISE TO REIMBURSE, MAY APPLY (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that the petition for leave to file a late notice of claim against the school (District) was properly granted. Petitioner had timely filed a notice of claim against the village, and the school was aware of the essential facts of the claim within the 90-day filing period. Petitioner alleged her son, who had broken his arm, was not supervised or assisted by the school at the time he tripped, fell and further injured his arm:

Here, the District had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim within the statutory period … . Furthermore, the petitioners made an initial showing that the District would not suffer any substantial prejudice by the delay, and the District failed to rebut the petitioners’ showing with particularized indicia of prejudice … . Even if the petitioners’ reason for failing to timely serve the District was not reasonable, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to the petition where, as here, there was actual notice and the absence of prejudice … . Matter of D.D. v Village of Great Neck, 2018 NY Slip Op 03358, Second Dept 5-9-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW,  LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))/STUDENTS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to add a battery cause of action against a teacher and a respondeat superior cause of action against the school should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the defendant teacher struck her on the back of her head. The complaint alleged a negligence cause of action. Prior to trial plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to add the battery and respondeat superior causes of action. The motion was denied. The case went to trial and the jury rendered a defense verdict. Plaintiff will get a new trial on the two causes of action in the amended complaint:

It is well settled that, “[i]n the absence of prejudice or surprise, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted” … . Plaintiff established that the relation-back doctrine applied for statute of limitations purposes with respect to the battery cause of action, which was based on the same facts and occurrence as the negligence cause of action and thus related back to the original complaint (see CPLR 203 [f]…). In opposition to the cross motion, defendants failed to establish that they would be prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint … , inasmuch as the new causes of action were based upon the same facts as the negligence cause of action in the original complaint … .

Defendants argued in opposition to the cross motion that plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse for her delay in seeking leave to amend the complaint, but ” [m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side’ ” … . Therefore, although plaintiff provided no excuse for her delay in seeking leave to amend, that is of no moment because, as noted above, defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by the delay … . Wojtalewski v Central Sq. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 03275, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 203 (AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT, RELATION-BACK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined two lawsuits (the Davids plaintiffs and the Wright plaintiffs) brought on behalf of New York public school students, alleging that certain statutes and policies concerning the hiring and firing of teachers leads to the retention of ineffective teachers, properly survived motions to dismiss. The statutes were alleged to violate the right to a sound basic education guaranteed by the NY Constitution:

… [T]he Davids plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the [teacher] Dismissal Statutes and the LIFO [last in first out] Statute separately and together violate the right to a sound basic education protected by the Education Article of the NY Constitution. In addition, the Wright plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for a judgment declaring that the Challenged Statutes violate the NY Constitution. Accordingly, the defendants were not entitled to dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(7). Davids v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 02168, Second Dept 3-28-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (NY) (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/TEACHERS (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))/SOUND BASIC EDUCATION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LAWSUITS ALLEGING STATUTES CONCERNING THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS HAVE LED TO THE RETENTION OF INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND THE CONSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SOUND BASIC EDUCATION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT))

,

SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant school district could not have foreseen the incident in which the plaintiff’s high school classmate injured plaintiff in gym class. The classmate put plaintiff in a choke hold from behind and plaintiff fell to the floor on his face. The classmate’s violent behavior when he was younger, three years before the gym class incident, was deemed insufficient to put the school on notice of the classmate’s propensity for violence:

“In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” … . “Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct is generally required because, obviously, school personnel cannot reasonably be expected to guard against all of the sudden, spontaneous acts that take place among students daily” … . Thus, “an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” … . “Summary judgment must be granted if the proponent makes a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact,’ and the opponent fails to rebut that showing” … . …

Defendant’s submissions … established that there were no prior incidents and no history of any animosity between the two students … . Indeed, the classmate testified that he intended only to “horse around” and that he “[d]idn’t mean anything by it.” Moreover, the classmate had never engaged in disorderly, insubordinate, disruptive, or violent conduct in any of the gym teacher’s classes prior to the subject incident. … [W]e agree with defendant that the classmate’s overall disciplinary record is insufficient to create an issue of fact whether the subject incident could reasonably have been anticipated. Although the classmate had an extensive disciplinary history, the majority of the incidents involved insubordinate and disruptive behavior, and the instances of violent and endangering conduct occurred when the classmate was in sixth through eighth grade, with his last citation for violent conduct occurring in April 2009, i.e., three years prior to the subject incident when the classmate was in 11th grade … . We thus conclude that the classmate’s prior violent and endangering conduct was too remote to provide defendant with sufficiently specific knowledge or notice that the classmate posed a danger to other students in gym class … . Hale v Holley Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 02033, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSAULT, LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))/STUDENTS (ASSAULT, SCHOOL COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN ASSAULT ON PLAINTIFF BY A CLASSMATE IN GYM CLASS, THE CLASSMATE’S VIOLENT ACTIONS WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE, DID NOT PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE THAT THE CLASSMATE POSED A DANGER (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, annulling the respondent-college’s determination and expunging the petitioner-student’s record, determined the finding that the petitioner had nonconsensual sex with another student was not supported by substantial evidence:

Respondent sanctioned petitioner by placing him on persona non grata status, barring him from the college campus, and making a notation of a disciplinary violation on petitioner’s academic transcript. This Court may review whether “the determination made as a result of a hearing held, and at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence” … . “Substantial evidence” is defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact”… . We conclude that respondent’s determination that the complainant lacked the ability to consent because of her incapacitation is not supported by substantial evidence. The complainant’s testimony at the disciplinary hearing contradicted her version with respect to the sequence of events made in her statement to the Buffalo Police Department, which statement was the most contemporaneous to the incident. Moreover, the affidavit and testimony of the witness who was with the complainant the morning following the incident was consistent with the complainant’s earlier version of the sequence of events, which establishes that she could not have been incapacitated at the time of the incident. Thus, considering the record as a whole, respondent’s determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of West v State Univ. of N.Y. at Buffalo, 2018 NY Slip Op 01839, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES) (FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))/EVIDENCE (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, FINDING THAT PETITIONER HAD NONCONSENSUAL SEX WITH ANOTHER COLLEGE STUDENT NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND RECORD EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s action against the defendant school district, seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer is not obligated to indemnify the defendants for a settlement reached in mediation, should not have been dismissed. The underlying action alleged the school district did not protect the plaintiffs from anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination. The insurer defended the action but reserved the right to disclaim coverage. A $3,000,000 (plus $1,480,000 attorney’s fees) settlement was reached. The Second Department determined the documentary evidence submitted by the school district, i.e., the insurance policies, did not conclusively establish a defense as a matter of law. Therefore the motion to dismiss the insurer’s declaratory judgment action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) should not have been granted:

The plaintiffs in the underlying action … alleged that repeated and frequent incidents of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination against them by other students, which were reported to school officials on numerous occasions and directly observed on other occasions by school personnel, gave rise to an inference that the defendants “intended for the harassment to occur” based upon the defendants’ practices, policies, and customs in dealing with reports and observations of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination, that the defendants “intentionally discriminated” against the plaintiffs, that the defendants’ conduct “aided and incited” unlawful discrimination, and that the defendants’ acts and omissions were “undertaken recklessly and with the intent to engage in wrongful conduct.”

While “it is not legally impossible to find accidental results flowing from intentional causes, i.e., that the resulting damage was unintended although the original act or acts leading to the damage were intentional”… , the insurance policies do not conclusively establish that the plaintiff is obligated to indemnify the defendants in the underlying action, and the other evidence submitted by the defendants did not utterly refute the factual allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. Whether the incidents set forth in the amended complaint in the underlying action were accidents present questions of fact which cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) … . Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2018 NY Slip Op 01565, Second Dept 3-7-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, INSURANCE LAW, (INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3211 (MOTION TO DISMISS ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, INSURANCE LAW, (INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, INSURER’S ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INDEMNIFY THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A SETTLEMENT REACHED IN AN UNDERLYING ACTION (WHICH ALLEGED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID NOT PROTECT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITIC HARASSMENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the exclusivity of a Workers’ Compensation remedy precluded plaintiff’s suit against an employee who worked for someone employed by plaintiff’s employer (NYC Department of Education, DOE). Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor in a school cafeteria:

Here, the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter DOE) employed Pedersen as a custodian engineer. As part of an “indirect system” of employment adopted by the DOE, Pedersen then employed Galant as a custodial assistant. Because the plaintiff was a DOE employee and Galant was employed by Pedersen, who also was a DOE employee, the plaintiff and Galant were “in the same employ” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29[6] …). Therefore, Workers’ Compensation benefits were the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy with respect to Galant … . Lupton v Pedersen, 2018 NY Slip Op 01048, Second Dept 2-14-18

WORKERS’S COMPENSATION LAW (EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL  (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, INDIRECT SYSTEM OF EMPLOYMENT, EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))/INDIRECT SYSTEM OF EMPLOYMENT (NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EXCLUSIVITY OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REMEDY PRECLUDED SUIT AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF A PERSON EMPLOYED BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing SUNY Plattsburgh’s dismissal of petitioner-student, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that a new disciplinary hearing was required because the Title IX Coordinator’s (Butterfly Blaise’s) testimony at the hearing reflected a misunderstanding of how consent to sex can be communicated. The facts of the sexual encounter between petitioner and the “reporting individual,” another student, were presented at the hearing by Blaise because, by statute, the reporting individual can decide whether or not to participate in the hearing.  The dissenting justices argued that the petitioner was denied his due process right to cross-examine the reporting individual and the determination should be annulled and expunged.  The majority found that the procedure employed by the college, including notice of the charges, comported with the controlling “Enough is Enough Law” and due process. The decision goes through all the arguments made by petitioner, which are substantive and well worth reading, but which cannot be fairly summarized here. With respect to the evidence of consent, the court wrote:

​

During the hearing, petitioner asked Blaise to define affirmative consent and she read the statutory definition, including that “consent can be given by words or actions as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in sexual activity.” Petitioner then asked, “So affirmative consent can be implied or referred [sic] from conduct?”, and Blaise responded, “[O]nly if the direct question is: Can I have sex with you? So you must ask directly what it is that you want to do to that person. . . . And the answer affirmatively must be yes.” This explanation was incorrect. The error was compounded when petitioner next inquired whether the consent standard applied to both parties, and Blaise explained that the obligation applied to the person initiating the sexual activity. When petitioner asked, “How do you define initiation?”, Blaise explained “that you initiated sexual intercourse by penetrating her.” This, too, was erroneous for the concepts of consent and initiation pertain to either verbal communication or the conduct between the participants, not simply the physical act of penetration.

Blaise’s mistakes raise a concern with regard to the Board’s determination, which was, simply, that petitioner was responsible for violating the Student Conduct Manual because he “initiated sexual intercourse with another student three different times without establishing affirmative consent.” By this determination, the Board failed to provide the requisite “findings of fact . . . [and] rationale for the decision and the sanction” (Education Law § 6444 [5] [b]). As a consequence of Blaise’s erroneous interpretations, we, like petitioner, are unable to discern whether the Board properly determined that petitioner initiated the sexual activity or even considered whether affirmative consent was given based on the reporting individual’s conduct. Matter of Jacobson v Blaise, 2018 NY Slip Op 00205, Third Dept 1-11-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ( DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/ENOUGH IS ENOUGH LAW (COLLEGES, DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))/DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (COLLEGES, PETITIONER COLLEGE STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW DISCIPLINARY HEARING, THE TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING BY THE COLLEGE’S TITLE IX COORDINATOR INCORRECTLY EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH CONSENT TO SEX CAN BE COMMUNICATED, DISSENTING JUSTICES ARGUED THE STUDENT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL AND THE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant school's (Board of Education's) motion for summary judgment in this negligent supervision action should have been granted. The four-year-old plaintiff tripped and fell as she was carrying a food tray:

“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” … . “Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students” … .

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the level of supervision afforded to the infant plaintiff was adequate … .. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, at the time of the accident, the infant plaintiff was in the midst of executing an age-appropriate task which she and her classmates had performed every single school day since the start of the 2012/2013 academic year … . Additionally, the mother's affidavit, which contradicted her own 50-h hearing testimony and the infant plaintiff's deposition testimony, was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact … . L.R. v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-10-18

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT TRIPPED CARRYING A LUNCH TRAY (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