Brown v. Board of Education of the Glen Cove Public Schools

• Decision Date: 13 December 1999
• Citation: 267 A.D.2d 267,700 N.Y.S.2d 58
• Parties: MENEASHA BROWN, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE GLEN COVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

267 A.D.2d 267

700 N.Y.S.2d 58

MENEASHA BROWN, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, GWENDOLYN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents,

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE GLEN COVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Decided December 13, 1999.

S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

On May 22, 1995, following a softball game between the girls' teams of Manhasset High School and Glen Cove High School, the infant plaintiff, a player on the Glen Cove team, was allegedly injured when two girls on the Manhasset team suddenly attacked her. After discovery, the appellants separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied their respective motions, finding that there were questions of fact as to the sufficiency of the appellants' supervision. We disagree.

It is well settled that "[s]chools 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" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49). Nevertheless, "[s]chools are not insurers of safety * * * for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students; therefore, schools are not to be held liable `for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another'" (Mirand v City of New York, supra, at 49, quoting Lawes v Board of Educ., 16 NY2d 302, 306). "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" (Mirand v City of New York, supra, at 49).

According to the infant plaintiff, there was no previous history of problems between the two teams, or between her and the girls who attacked her. The only evidence of prior misconduct on the part of the two girls who attacked her was that one of the girls had...