You are here: / Education-School Law
, ,

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Department of Education (DOE) did not demonstrate a lack of constructive knowledge of the condition of a cart used by plaintiff teacher to move materials out of a classroom. The cart stopped suddenly and the plaintiff’s foot was injured. There was conflicting evidence about whether plaintiff and others had made the DOE aware of the defective condition of the cart:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the DOE did not have constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the cart that caused the plaintiff’s injuries. In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, among other things, a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony. At her deposition, the plaintiff testified that in September 2015, approximately five months before she was injured, she complained about the condition of the cart to the school principal. The plaintiff further testified that in January 2016, approximately one month before the accident, her supervisor, an assistant principal at the school, observed the plaintiff “struggling” to use the cart, which “wasn’t working properly.” According to the plaintiff, her supervisor advised that she would speak with the principal about the issue. The DOE also submitted a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s supervisor, who testified that prior to the accident, she did not recall the plaintiff making any complaints specifically about the condition of the cart. This conflicting testimony raised triable issues of fact as to credibility and whether the DOE had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the cart … . Rossi v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 04607, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff, a teacher, alleged she was injured when a cart used to move materials stopped suddenly. There was conflicting evidence whether defendant had been made aware of the defective condition of the cart. Therefore defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.

 

,

A TEACHER MAY NOT ACCUMULATE CREDIT TOWARD TENURE IN ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR WORK AS A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER IN ANOTHER DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ford, determined a teacher may not accumulate credit towards tenure from working as a substitute teacher in a different district:

The narrow issue presented on this appeal, apparently one of first impression for an appellate court in this State, is whether a teacher may accumulate credit towards tenure, also known as “Jarema credit,” pursuant to Education Law § 3012, for time spent teaching as a regular substitute teacher in a district other than the district in which the teacher is seeking tenure. … [W]e conclude that a teacher is only entitled to “Jarema credit” for regular substitute service if said service was completed in the district in which the teacher is seeking tenure. Matter of DeNigris v Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 03783, Second Dept 7-12-23

Practice Point: A teacher may not accumulate credit toward tenure in one school district for time working as a substitute teacher in another district.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT’S DISCUSSION OF PLAINTIFF CROSS-COUNTY COACH’S TERMINATION WITH STUDENTS WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant school superintendent’s (Brantner’s) statements to students about plaintiff cross-country coach (who was terminated) were absolutely privileged:

“The absolute privilege defense affords complete immunity from liability for defamation to an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government . . . with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within the ambit of those duties” … . Here, plaintiff does not dispute that Brantner, as superintendent, is a government official to whom the absolute privilege would apply … . The question presented is whether Brantner was acting within the scope of her duties as superintendent when she met with members of the cross-country team in a classroom before school to discuss plaintiff’s termination.

We conclude that … Brantner’s statements were made during the course of the performance of her duties as a school superintendent and were about matters within the ambit of those responsibilities.  Brantner testified at her deposition that the school board asked her to speak with the students, who had appeared at school board meetings demanding to know why plaintiff had been fired …  In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that Brantner decided on her own to meet with the students, we conclude that she was acting within the scope of her duties when making the statements. Although Education Law § 1711 … does not specifically authorize superintendents to meet with students, the statute is not an exhaustive list delineating every action that a school superintendent is permitted to engage in, and the absence from the statute of a reference to a particular category of action does not mean that it is unauthorized. In our view, a school superintendent does not act ultra vires when speaking to students in a school setting about a matter related to their education or extracurricular activities. Panek v Brantner, 2023 NY Slip Op 03636, Fourth Dept 6-30-23

Practice Point: Because the defendant school superintendent was acting within the scope of her duties when she discussed plaintiff cross-country coach’s termination with students, her statements were absolutely privileged and will not support a defamation action.

 

, , , ,

THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR A STIGMA-PLUS 43 USC 1983 VIOLATION AND DEFAMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE BASED UPON A STATEMENT BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF DISREGARDING COVID POLICY AND ENDANGERING STUDENTS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFER ECONOMIC HARM AND THE STATEMENT WAS PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the stigma-plus 42 USC 1983 cause of action and the defamation cause of action should have been dismissed. The action was brought by plaintiff, a school football coach, based upon a letter circulated by the school district accusing plaintiff of disregarding COVID precautions and recklessly exposing students to the virus. Initially the district was not going to renew plaintiff’s contract but ultimately plaintiff was not terminated:

A stigma-plus cause of action requires a plaintiff to establish “(1) the utterance of a statement sufficiently derogatory to injure his or her reputation, that is capable of being proved false, and that he or she claims is false, and (2) a material state-imposed burden or state-imposed alteration of the plaintiff’s status or rights” … . Because a defamatory statement, standing alone, does not amount to a constitutional deprivation, “the ‘plus’ imposed by the defendant[s] must be  specific and adverse action clearly restricting the plaintiff’s liberty—for example, the loss of employment” … . * * *

… [T]he complaint alleges that the District superintendent, whose role included termination of employees like plaintiff, circulated the allegedly defamatory letter. A school superintendent is a principal executive whose statements may be protected by absolute privilege … . Further, based on the allegations in the complaint, we conclude that “the [superintendent] was acting wholly within the scope of his duties” when making the relevant statements  … . Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 03102, Fourth Dept 6-9-23

Practice Point: Here a statement that plaintiff school football coach disregarded COVID policy and endangered students did not support the stigma-plus 42 USC 1983 cause of action because plaintiff did not suffer economic harm and did not support the defamation cause of action because the statement was privileged.

 

, ,

A COURT MUST ACCEPT AN ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING EVIDENCE; BUT THE TERMINATION OF THE TEACHER, WHO HAD AN UNBLEMISHED RECORD, FOR INAPPROPRIATELY RESTRAINING A FEMALE STUDENT, SHOCKED ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the arbitrator’s interpretation of conflicting evidence must be accepted, but termination of the teacher based on the evidence was not warranted. It was alleged the petitioner-teacher inappropriately restrained a female student who was trying to get past him:

“Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through a statutory mandate (see Education Law § 3020-a), the determination of the arbitrator is subject to ‘closer judicial scrutiny’ under CPLR 7511(b) than it would otherwise receive” … . “An award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious” … .

Here, there was a rational basis and evidentiary support for the finding that the petitioner committed the conduct with which he was charged by inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him. Although a video of the incident, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, could be interpreted in more than one way, this Court must “accept the arbitrator’s credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists” … .

However, in light of the petitioner’s otherwise unblemished record of approximately 19 years as a teacher with the respondent, the penalty of termination of employment was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness … . Matter of O’Brien v Yonkers City Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 03011, Second Dept 6-7-23

Practice Point: In this arbitration pursuant to the Education Law, the court was required to accept the arbitrator’s interpretation of conflicting evidence. But termination of the teacher for inappropriately restraining a female student who was trying to get past him shocked one’s sense of fairness.

 

,

THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE VIABILITY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE AS IT APPLIES TO SCHOOL SPORTS; AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT ARGUED THE DOCTRINE SHOULD BE ABANDONED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over two dissenting opinions, one of which argued the implied assumption of risk doctrine should be abandoned, determined the dismissal of one of the school-sports-assumption-of-risk cases before it (Stecky) should be affirmed and the dismissal of the other (Grady) should be reversed because it raised unresolved questions of fact:

In Secky, the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies, and we affirm the Appellate Division order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff, who had played basketball at the highest amateur student level, was injured during a drill in which the players competed to retrieve a rebound. Plaintiff’s coach had explained that the boundary lines of the court would not apply during the drill and that only major fouls would be called. At the time of the drill, bleachers stationed near the court were retracted. Plaintiff was injured when, pursuing a loose ball from the top of the key towards the bleachers, another player collided with him, causing plaintiff to fall into the bleachers and sustain an injury to his right shoulder. Plaintiff, through his mother, sued the coach and the school district, and defendants moved for summary judgment. * * *

… [P]laintiff’s injury is one inherent in the sport of basketball and so he assumed the risk of the injury he sustained. …

In Grady, by contrast, material issues of fact remain to be resolved by a jury. Plaintiff, a senior on the Chenango Valley High School varsity baseball team, was injured during his participation in a fast-moving, intricate drill. The drill involved two coaches hitting balls to players stationed in the infield, with one coach hitting to the third baseman, who would then throw to first base, while another coach hit to the shortstop, who would throw to the second baseman who would, in turn, throw to a player at “short first base,” positioned a few feet from regulation first base. Because the drill required baseballs from two parts of the infield to be thrown to two players in the same area by first base, the coaches had positioned a protective screen, measuring seven by seven, between the regulation first baseman and the short first baseman. Plaintiff, in the group of players assigned to first base, was injured when an errant ball, intended for the short first baseman, bypassed the short first baseman and the protective screen and hit him on the right side of his face, causing serious injury to his eye including significant vision loss. …

… [P]laintiff has raised triable questions of fact regarding whether the drill, as conducted here and with the use of the seven-by-seven-foot screen, “was unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent” in baseball … , and whether plaintiff’s awareness of the risks inherent in both the game of baseball and the practices that are a necessary part of participation in organized sports encompassed the risks arising from involvement in the drill performed here. Grady v Chenango Val. Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 02142, CtApp 4-27-23

Practice Point: The majority rejected the dissenter’s argument that the assumption of risk doctrine should be abandoned.

 

, ,

THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION (OF THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) AND NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN (THE PLAINTIFF-STUDENT) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED PLAINTIFF WAS SENT TO A PRIEST NOT EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL FOR DISCIPLINE AND WAS MOLESTED BY THE PRIEST (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent supervision and negligent failure to warn causes of action against defendant Catholic school should not have been dismissed in this Child Victims Act case. Plaintiff alleged he was sent by the school to a priest, who was not employed by the school, for discipline. Plaintiff alleged he was molested by the priest and the school knew or should have known of the priest’s propensity:

The complaint alleges … the defendant knew or should have known of the priest’s propensity to molest children, that the defendant had a duty to exercise the same duty of care of supervision over its minor students as a reasonably prudent parent would, and that the defendant breached its duty to adequately supervise the plaintiff which caused him to be sexually abused by the priest. …  … [T]he fact that the sexual abuse occurred off school premises does not require dismissal of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision since, here, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant released the plaintiff into a potentially hazardous situation and directed him to see a certain priest for discipline knowing that the priest had a propensity to sexually abuse children … . … [T]he criminal intervention of a third party may be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of circumstances created by the defendant, for example where, as here, the plaintiff was permitted to meet with the priest, a person who allegedly had a propensity to abuse children, alone and behind closed doors … .

… Supreme Court erred in determining that the cause of action alleging negligent failure to warn was subject to dismissal because it was duplicative of the cause of action alleging negligent supervision. … [T]hese causes of action are based on distinctive facts, one based on failing to warn the plaintiff about the priest and the other based on the defendant’s failure to adequately supervise the plaintiff … . Sullivan v St. Ephrem R.C. Parish Church, 2023 NY Slip Op 01207, Second Dept 3-8-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged the Catholic school sent him to a priest, who was not employed by the school, for school-related discipline and the priest molested him. The causes of action for negligent supervision of the plaintiff-student and failure to warn the plaintiff-student should not have been dismissed. The fact that the priest was not employed by the school did not require dismissal because the school allegedly released the plaintiff into a dangerous situation. Nor did the fact that the priest allegedly committed criminal acts relieve the school of potential liability.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S CHEMICAL BURNS WERE CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONALLY WRONGFUL, SPONTANEOUS, UNFORESEEABLE ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES OVER WHOM DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAD NO CONTROL OR AUTHORITY; STUDENTS HAD APPARENLY PUT DRANO IN A WATER BOTTLE WHICH PLAINTIFF KICKED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE SCHOOL DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON ITS LACK OF NOTICE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant charter school [Mission] did not have notice of the dangerous condition which allegedly caused plaintiff-student’s chemical burns. Plaintiff kicked a plastic water bottle which had Drano in it, called a Drano bomb. Plaintiff alleged school personnel knew or should have known other students were making the Drano bombs:

The court properly granted Mission’s summary judgment motion, even assuming that a triable issue exists as to whether plaintiff was participating in Mission’s afterschool program at the time she was injured. Plaintiff testified that, before she was injured, she had seen other children, who were not participating in Mission’s afterschool program, on a different basketball court in the public park pouring a liquid into a Poland Spring bottle, not a Vitamin Water bottle. Plaintiff theorizes that Mission’s staff should have observed the conduct of these children and intervened to stop them. However, plaintiff’s own testimony, on which Mission was entitled to rely to satisfy its prima facie burden on the summary judgment motion, established that the actions of the children — even indulging the speculative assumption that they created the Drano bomb that later injured plaintiff — were the intentionally wrongful, spontaneous, and unforeseeable acts of third parties over whom Mission had no control or authority … .

From the dissent:

Mission’s motion presented no evidence whatsoever from any of its employees, teachers, supervisors, or in the form of records from the afterschool program. Mission consequently failed to address, in the first instance, the issue of whether it had “notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury” … . Under the circumstances, Mission’s reliance on the testimony of other parties was insufficient to carry its prima facie burden. S. G. v Harlem Vil. Academy Charter Sch., 2023 NY Slip Op 01069, First Dept 2-28-23

Practice Point: Here the school successfully argued the plaintiff-student’s chemical burns were caused by the intentionally wrongful, spontaneous, and unforeseeable acts of other children over whom the school had no control. Plaintiff kicked a water bottle which had Drano in it (a Drano bomb). Two dissenters argued the school did not present sufficient evidence of its lack of notice.

 

, ,

HERE THE STUDENT WITH DISABILITIES WAS UNSUPERVISED IN GYM CLASS WHEN SHE WAS INJURED; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT SUCCESSFULLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE THAT MORE SUPERVISION OF THE STUDENT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE PURPORTEDLY CONFLICTED WITH THE STUDENT’S “AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 504 PLAN” (WHICH DID NOT CALL FOR EXTRA SUPERVISION) AND THEREFORE EXTRA SUPERVISION WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO DISCRIMINATION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT FINDING THAT THE 504 PLAN DID NOT ACT AS A CEILING FOR THE LEVEL OF SUPERVISION TO BE AFFORDED THE STUDENT AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, determined expert evidence and lay-witness testimony should not have been excluded from this negligent-supervision-of-a-student trial. The student had some physical disabilities and a “504 plan” had been developed for her pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plan did not explicitly call for extra supervision. The student was injured when she was practicing jumps in gym class while the teacher was working with other students. The school district successfully argued to the judge that any evidence that the “504 plan” was inadequate to protect the student amounted to discrimination because the plan did not call for extra supervision. That argument was rejected by the Third Department:

… [A] school district’s written 504 plan does not operate as a supervision ceiling in all respects and circumstances.The central purpose of Section 504 is to assure that students with disabilities receive equal treatment in relation to their peers … , that is, that they receive support, based on their individual needs, so that they may also meaningfully access a given educational experience … . This stands in stark contrast to defendant’s reliance upon federal antidiscrimination law as a shield from liability. Plainly put, if two kindergarteners have difficulty performing a skill in a mainstream physical education class, adequate support should be provided to both of them — not, illogically, only the one who does not have a 504 plan. Yet that is precisely what defendant’s argument devolves to. Jaquin v Canastota Cent. Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 01039, Third Dept 2-23-23

Practice Point: Here the injured student had certain disabilities and the school district put in place a 504 Plan pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act to accommodate for her disabilities. The plan did not call for extra supervision. The student was injured while unsupervised in gym class. The school district successfully argued evidence that more supervision was needed conflicted with the 504 plan. The argument was rejected and a new trial ordered.

, ,

THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT, QUASI CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF SCHOOL BUS COMPANY WAS SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE MONTHS THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined this breach of contract, quasi contract, unjust enrichment complaint should have been dismissed. Defendant school-bus company was demanding payment for those months the schools were closed due to COVID-19:

… [T]he complaint failed to specify the provision of the parties’ contract that was allegedly breached … . … [N]o provision was identified which would permit the plaintiff to demand payment from the defendant in exchange for merely remaining available to provide transportation services … . In addition, the evidentiary material submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s motion failed to remedy this defect in the complaint … .

… “[T]he existence of a valid contract governing the subject matter generally precludes recovery in quasi contract for events arising out of the same subject matter” … . “[T]he theory of unjust enrichment lies as a quasi-contract claim. It is an obligation the law creates in the absence of an agreement” … . “An unjust enrichment claim is not available where it simply duplicates, or replaces, a conventional contract or tort claim” … .

“The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . “A plaintiff must show that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the [defendant] to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . Here, the complaint fails to sufficiently allege that the defendant was enriched or otherwise received a benefit at the plaintiff’s expense to support a cause of action for quasi contract sounding in restitution or unjust enrichment … . Pierce Coach Line, Inc. v Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist., 2023 NY Slip Op 01018, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: An unjust enrichment cause of action will not fly if there is a contract covering the same subject matter (here there was such a contract). Unjust enrichment sounds in equity and addresses when it is unfair for a party to retain what the other party is seeking to recover. The defendant school district was not unjustly enriched by not paying the plaintiff school bus company for those months when the school was closed due to COVID.

 

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