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

THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER-TEACHER’S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF AN EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE BECAUSE THE MANDATE IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED AN ADVISORY OPINION TO THE CONTRARY; THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES WAS IMPROPER; THE PETITION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petitioner, at teacher, was not entitled to an extension of an exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate (denied by the NYC Department of Education) and the award of over $24,000 in attorney’s fees. The vaccine mandate is no longer in force, and the matter did not meet the criteria for an exception to the mootness doctrine:

Courts are prohibited from rendering advisory opinions, and a matter will be considered academic unless the rights of the parties will be directly affected by the determination of the matter and the interest of the parties is an immediate consequence of the judgment … . Here, the vaccine mandate, which was never enforced against the petitioner, was repealed on February 9, 2023. Accordingly, the petition is academic … .

Furthermore, the exception to the mootness doctrine, which permits judicial review where the case presents a significant issue that is likely to recur and evade review, is inapplicable here … . The issue is not likely to repeat, as the vaccine mandate has been repealed and the possibility that some form of vaccine mandate might be enforced against the petitioner at some unknown time in the future is entirely speculative, and the petitioner does not raise novel questions … .

Since an award of attorneys’ fees is not authorized by agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule, the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys’ fees to the petitioner … ..  Matter of Ferrera v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2024 NY Slip Op 04317, Second Dept 8-28-24

Practice Point: Because the vaccine mandate for NYC teachers is no longer in force, the petitioner-teacher’s request for an extension of an exemption from the mandate was properly denied by the NYC Department of Education. Supreme Court’s grant of the extension and award of attorney’s fees was improper because courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions. In addition, the criteria for an exception to the mootness doctrine were not met.

 

, , , ,

A TEACHER’S ALLEGED STATEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ANOTHER TEACHER OCCURRING REPEATEDLY AT SCHOOL WAS DEEMED AN ADMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SEXUAL ABUSE WAS FORESEEABLE BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a concurrence disagreeing with the majority ruling that a teacher’s alleged statement was admissible against the school district as an admission, affirmed the denial of the school district’s motion for summary judgment in this Child Victims Act negligent supervision case. Plaintiff, who was a student in the late 60’s, alleged repeated abuse by a teacher in a back room at the school. Another teacher was alleged to have overheard the abuse and allegedly threatened plaintiff with revealing it in an attempt to sexually abuse plaintiff himself. That statement was deemed an admission which raised a question of fact whether the abuse was foreseeable by the school district:

… [P]laintiff testified that the orchestra teacher offered her a ride home from a bus stop after an evening event at the school. Instead of taking her home, however, the orchestra teacher took her to a park where, according to plaintiff, he told her “that he knew what was going on because he could hear through the walls from the orchestra room into that back room [where Fleming’s office was located] and that [plaintiff] didn’t want it to get out — [plaintiff] wouldn’t want it to come out, so [she] should be nice to him.” When plaintiff responded that she did not know what the orchestra teacher was talking about, he attempted to kiss her. * * *

The court determined that the entirety of the statement attributed to the orchestra teacher was admissible as a vicarious party admission of defendant under CPLR 4549 and therefore properly considered when evaluating defendant’s motion for summary judgment, because the orchestra teacher was employed by defendant and “[r]ecognizing and responding to the abuse of students while on school grounds certainly falls within the scope of the duties of a teacher employed by [defendant].” * * *

We conclude that it is within the scope of a teacher’s employment relationship to identify and assist a student who they believe is being sexually abused, and that the orchestra teacher’s statement indicating awareness of the abuse of plaintiff was therefore “on a matter within the scope of [the employment] relationship” … . We further conclude that the orchestra teacher’s statement professing knowledge of the abuse occurred “during the existence of” the employment relationship, within the meaning of CPLR 4549, inasmuch as it is undisputed that he was employed by defendant at the time the statement was made. Therefore, we agree with the court that the statement is admissible pursuant to CPLR 4549. Bl Doe 5, 2024 NY Slip Op 03608, Fourth Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: In a negligent supervision action against a school district, is a statement allegedly made by a teacher to a student indicating the teacher’s awareness of repeated sexual abuse of the student by another teacher, taking place at school, admissible against the school district as an admission of its awareness of the abuse? Here the court answered “yes” over a concurrence which disagreed.

 

, ,

THE EDUCATION LAW PROVISIONS AND RELATED REGULATIONS (1) REQUIRING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND (2) ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDING TO BE CURTAILED AND REQUIRING STUDENTS TO ATTEND A DIFFERENT SCHOOL IF THE EQUIVALENCY TEST IS NOT MET ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, over a dissent, determined the regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education concerning the evaluation of nonpublic schools and the cutting-off of services provided to those schools if they don’t meet the “equivalent-to-public-schools” test are valid and enforceable. The petitioners here are five yeshivas and related organizations:

Petitioners contend that the subject regulation provisions impose a penalty upon nonpublic schools that fail to meet the statute’s educational standard, an argument accepted by the dissent — but “penalty” is not an accurate characterization. First, prior to any negative substantial equivalency determination, nonpublic schools under review are engaged in a lengthy collaborative process, specifically designed to assist them in meeting the basic educational standards set forth within the Education Law (see 8 NYCRR 130.6 [a] [1] [iii]; 130.8 [d] [2]). To be sure, the Commissioner is statutorily authorized to impose civil and criminal penalties against a parent or guardian who fails to fulfill their duty under the compulsory education requirement (see Education Law §§ 3233, 3234), and to withhold certain public moneys from any city or district that “wil[l]fully omits and refuses to enforce” relevant statutory provisions (Education Law § 3234 [1]). The Education Law does not provide for any direct penalty upon nonpublic schools.

… By definition, a nonpublic school that fails to demonstrate substantial equivalency necessarily fails to fulfill the requirements of the compulsory education mandate … . Parents are obligated to comply with this mandate and, as such, the Commissioner’s declaration that a particular institution fails to meet the statutory standards required to meet that duty is no more, or less, than a necessary advisory to parents.

… [T]he loss of status as a substantially equivalent nonpublic school is not equivalent to closure; the institutions … continue to operate and provide some form of instruction. … [T]he Education Law, and the corresponding regulations, do not limit the parents’ opportunity to enroll their children in any extracurricular instruction or activities that they deem appropriate and helpful, and nothing in the regulations prohibits the children from being enrolled in such institutions — the sole limitation is that the statutory mandate must be met … . Matter of Parents for Educ. & Religious Liberty in Schs. v Young, 2024 NY Slip Op 03523, Third Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: If a nonpublic school does not provide a level of education equivalent to that provided by the public schools, public funding of those schools can be curtailed and students can be required to attend a different school.

 

SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO TRANSPORT CHILDREN TO THEIR PRIVATE SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined a school district is not required to transport children to their private schools when the public schools are closed:

Education Law § 3635 (1) (a) provides: “Sufficient transportation facilities (including the operation and maintenance of motor vehicles) shall be provided by the school district for all the children residing within the school district to and from the school they legally attend, who are in need of such transportation because of the remoteness of the school to the child or for the promotion of the best interest of such children.”

The issue on appeal is whether by requiring that school districts provide “sufficient” transportation, the statute obligates school districts to afford nonpublic students transportation on days their schools are in session, including days when public schools are closed. We conclude it does not. Matter of United Jewish Community of Blooming Grove, Inc. v Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 03377, CtApp 6-20-24

Practice Point: The Education Law does not require school districts to transport students to their private schools when the public schools are closed.

 

, , ,

HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY A TEACHER WERE BASED ON HER INABILITY TO CONSENT UNDER THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL COULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION UNTIL PLAINTIFF TURNED 17; ALTHOUGH THE ABUSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, THE TEACHER, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ALLEGEDLY MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET HER AFTER SCHOOL; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against the school based upon alleged conduct by a teacher should not have been dismissed, despite the fact the abuse allegedly took place off school grounds: The abuse was alleged to be conduct which would violate article 130 of the Penal Law. Plaintiff was legally incapable of consent until she turned 17. The school was deemed responsible for supervision only until plaintiff turned 17:

The allegations of criminal conduct against the teacher were based on the plaintiff’s inability to consent to sexual conduct due to the plaintiff’s age, which ended when the plaintiff turned 17 years old (see Penal Law § 130.05[3][a]). Accordingly, the court properly determined that the CVA did not revive so much of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision of the plaintiff as was related to alleged conduct that occurred after the plaintiff turned 17 years old … .

… The defendants’ submissions included … the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, wherein the plaintiff testified that all of the sexual abuse occurred off school property and outside of school hours … . In opposition, however, the plaintiff … averred that the teacher singled her out for attention, made extended eye contact with her, winked at her, and complimented her appearance in front of other staff in school. According to the plaintiff, the teacher made comments directly to other staff and in the presence of other students about the plaintiff’s appearance, and the teacher made arrangements with the plaintiff during school hours and on school grounds to meet after school where the alleged abuse took place … . Fain v Berry, 2024 NY Slip Op 03032, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Allegations of violations of Penal Law article 130 based upon the legal incapacity to consent apply only until the victim turns 17.

Practice Point: Although the alleged abuse by a teacher took place off school grounds, the teacher, during school hours, made public comments about plaintiff’s appearance and arranged to meet her after school. There the negligent supervision cause of action against the school should not have been dismissed.

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER DURING THE SCHOOL DAY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT UNDER BOTH RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act action, determined the respondeat superior and negligent supervision causes of action against the school alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a teacher should not have been dismissed. Essentially the complaint alleged negligent supervision of both the teacher and the child. The defendant school did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the abuse which allegedly took place over the course of a year in the same classroom during the school day:

“The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring, . . . retention, or supervision of the employee” … .

… “[A] school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . “In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over” the entirety of a school year, “and always occurred inside the same classroom during the school day, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse” … .. The defendants similarly failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent … . Sayegh v City of Yonkers, 2024 NY Slip Op 03065, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Here it was alleged plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher repeatedly over a year during the school day. There were questions of fact whether the school had constructive notice of the abuse which supported causes of action under a respondeat superior theory (negligent supervision of the teacher) and a negligent supervision theory (negligent supervision of the child).

 

, ,

THE FORMER SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PTSD STEMMED FROM A SERIES OF INTERACTIONS WITH A CO-EMPLOYEE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN “ACCIDENT;” SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ADR) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the petitioner’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from interactions with a another school employee did not entitle her to accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) as opposed to ordinary disability retirement benefits (ODR)  The court found that the employee interactions took place over a period of time and could not be characterized as “a sudden, unexpected event,” i.e., an “accident.” The court however refused to rule out that intentional conduct by a co-employee could constitute an “accident” in some circumstances:

… [T]he record supports the [Teachers’ Retirement System Medical] Board’s determination that petitioner’s injuries did not result from an event that was sudden, fortuitous, and unexpected … . Although petitioner claims that her PTSD was brought on by the April 2019 occurrence, that event was merely the latest of a series of incidents in which the food-service worker trespassed on school property and acted in a confrontational manner toward petitioner, causing her significant stress and anxiety. As early as February 2019, petitioner informed school officials that the employee was continuously disobeying instructions to keep away from the school and that she was “concerned about the students and the building staff that have to endure his confrontational behavior.” Following another incident in March, petitioner wrote that she “d[id] not feel comfortable with [the employee] given his behavior in the school.” The Board rejected petitioner’s initial ADR application on the ground that “based on the description of the events in question that occurred in the work setting on April 18, 2019, as well as the previous events in the work setting in February and March of 2019, [petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the work setting.” Because that reasoning is supported by the evidentiary record, the Board’s determination to deny ADR will not be disturbed on this appeal. Matter of Rawlins v Teachers’ Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 02840, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: Although an intentional act by a co-employee could constitute an “accident” giving rise to accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) under the Teachers’ Retirement System, here the interactions with the co-employee took place over a period of months and could not be described as “a sudden, unexpected event.”

 

,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL’S DUTY TO SUPERVISE STUDENTS EXTENDS TO AN AREA OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL WHERE PARENTS PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE STUDENTS; INFANT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON A ROAD DEFECT NEAR THE CURB (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision cause of action against defendant school should not have been dismissed. Infant plaintiff tripped and fell on a road defect that abutted a curb where students were picked up and dropped off by parents:

“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” … . “[A] school’s duty to supervise is generally viewed as being coextensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the child,” and therefore, “[w]hen that custody ceases because the child has passed out of the orbit of its authority in such a way that the parent is perfectly free to reassume control over the child’s protection, the school’s custodial duty also ceases” … . “[W]hile a school has no duty to prevent injury to schoolchildren released in a safe and anticipated manner, the school breaches a duty when it releases a child without further supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating”… .

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff was released from school without adequate supervision into a foreseeably hazardous setting they had a hand in creating … . Thus, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that their negligent supervision over the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injuries the infant plaintiff sustained … . Levy v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02807, Second Dept 5-22-24

Practice Point: A school’s duty to supervise students may extend to areas outside the school, i.e., the area where students are picked up and dropped off by parents.

 

, ,

RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CHALLENGED FENCE DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO ASSERT A ZONING VIOLATION; BECAUSE THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE, THEY ARE NECESSARY PARTIES IN THIS ZONING-VIOLATION PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) plaintiff property owners who did not live in close proximity to the proposed fence around school property did not have standing to assert a zoning violation; and (2) the NYS Department of Education (SED) and the Commissioner of Education, which authorized construction of the fence, are necessary parties. The plaintiffs alleged the local school district violated local zoning laws by not seeking approval from the village before starting construction of the fence:

A party seeking standing to challenge an administrative action must establish that the injury it sustained was “different in kind and degree from the community generally” … . A party residing “in the immediate vicinity” of the subject property suffers harm greater than the community at large when the subject property violates a zoning law because “loss of value of individual property may be presumed from depreciation of the character of the immediate neighborhood” … . …

… “[N]ecessary parties are persons who might be inequitably affected by a judgment in the action and must be made plaintiffs or defendants” ( … CPLR 1001[a]). SED and the Commissioner are necessary parties because the Supreme Court’s determination would necessarily determine their rights to set school safety standards and approve plans for school construction … . Matter of Cuomo v East Williston Union Free Sch. Dist., 2024 NY Slip Op 02702, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: Only residents who live in close proximity to property alleged to violate zoning laws have standing to assert a zoning violation.

Practice Point: When necessary parties have not been included in a lawsuit, the court should try to make them parties.

 

, , , ,

COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST STUDENTS OF COLOR AND SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging the New York City public school system discriminates against Black and Latinx students and seeking injunctive relief was justiciable and stated valid causes of action. Therefore the complaint, which had been dismissed, is now reinstated. The opinion is comprehensive and far too detailed to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs allege that State and City policies create a “racialized” admission pipeline. According to plaintiffs, the pipeline begins with a single standardized test for the City’s Gifted & Talented (G&T) programs taken by children as young as four-years-old. The G&T test, plaintiffs assert, disproportionately benefits “privileged” white students and their “in-the-know” parents, who have the “navigational capital” to understand the admissions process and the economic capital to pay for expensive test preparation. The G&T programs, plaintiffs allege, provide superior academic preparation, which allows primarily white and Asian students to continue through the pipeline to academically screened middle and high schools, relegating Black and Latinx students to unscreened schools, often in poorly maintained buildings with limited extracurricular programs. The end of the pipeline, or “zenith” as plaintiffs describe it, is admission to one of eight New York City specialized high schools based on the results of the Special High School Admissions Test (the SHSAT).* * *

The pipeline, plaintiffs claim, is designed to exclude Black and Latinx students from the City’s prime educational opportunities. According to plaintiffs, the State and the City “intentionally adopted” and “for decades have intentionally retained—with no pedagogical basis—testing-based sorting that they know excludes students of color from equal educational opportunities.” This knowledge was acquired, plaintiffs allege, “through decades of experience and reflected in [defendants] own admissions” including the knowledge of the public school system’s “racist character and outcomes.” Despite this knowledge, plaintiffs allege that the State and the City “intentionally refuse to dismantle . . . its racialized channeling system.” IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02369, First Dept 5-2-24

Practice Point: Here Supreme Court’s conclusion that the suit seeking injunctive relief from discriminatory education policies and procedures in the New York City public school system was not “justiciable” was rejected.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy