Buchholz v. Patchogue–medford Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2011
• Citation: Buchholz v. Patchogue–medford Sch. Dist., 88 A.D.3d 843, 931 N.Y.S.2d 113, 272 Ed. Law Rep. 630, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
• Parties: Robert Christopher BUCHHOLZ, appellant,v.PATCHOGUE–MEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent, et al., defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

88 A.D.3d 843

931 N.Y.S.2d 113

272 Ed. Law Rep. 630

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07392

Robert Christopher BUCHHOLZ, appellant,

v.PATCHOGUE–MEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent, et al., defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Oct. 18, 2011.

Miller & Eisenman, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael P. Eisenman of counsel), for appellant.Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Diane K. Farrell, David S. Pallai, and Nicholas M. Bruno of counsel), for respondent.MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ARIEL E. BELEN, SHERI S. ROMAN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Mayer, J.), dated August 24, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendantPatchogue–Medford School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendantPatchogue–Medford School District which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged negligent supervision by security personnel and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On June 15, 2005, the last day of the school year, the plaintiff student allegedly sustained injuries when he was assaulted in a school hallway by two fellow students, the defendantsDavid Ho and Joel Correra.The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the defendantsPatchogue–Medford School District(hereinafter the School District), Ho, and Correra, alleging, among other things, negligent supervision by the School District.

Following joinder of issue and discovery, the School District moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, alleging that it had no actual or constructive notice that Ho and Correra would assault the plaintiff, and that the assault occurred in so short a span of time that any alleged negligence on its part could not have been the proximate cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries.

Schools have a duty to provide supervision to ensure the safety of those students in their charge and are liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision ( seeBrandy B. v. Eden Cent. School Dist.,15 N.Y.3d 297, 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304;Mirand v. City of New York,84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263;Hernandez v. Christopher Robin Academy,276 A.D.2d 592, 714 N.Y.S.2d 518;Brown v. Board of Educ. of Glen Cove Pub. Schools,267 A.D.2d 267, 700 N.Y.S.2d 58).“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,84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263;seeVelez v. Freeport Union Free School Dist.,292 A.D.2d 595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 364;O'Neal v. Archdioceses of N.Y.,286 A.D.2d 757, 730 N.Y.S.2d 524;Hernandez v. Christopher Robin Academy,276 A.D.2d 592, 714 N.Y.S.2d 518).Injuries caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to negligence on the part of the School District absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act ( seeMirand v. City of New York,84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263;Velez v. Freeport Union Free School Dist.,292 A.D.2d 595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 364;Janukajtis v. Fallon,284 A.D.2d 428, 429–430, 726 N.Y.S.2d 451).

Here, the School District submitted evidence showing that the plaintiff and the two assailants, Ho and Correra, had never previously been involved in a violent altercation with each other, and that none of the disciplinary infractions previously committed by Ho and Correra involved violent behavior.Such evidence established, prima facie, that the School District had no actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous conduct by Ho and Correra, and that it could not have reasonably foreseen the attack on the plaintiff( seeMorman v. Ossining Union Free School Dist.,297 A.D.2d 788, 747 N.Y.S.2d 586;Velez v. Freeport Union Free School Dist.,292 A.D.2d 595, 740 N.Y.S.2d 364;Janukajtis v. Fallon,284 A.D.2d at 430, 726 N.Y.S.2d 451;Brown v. Board of Educ. of Glen Cove Pub. Schools,267 A.D.2d 267, 700 N.Y.S.2d 58;Kennedy v. Seaford Union Free School Dist. No. 6,250 A.D.2d 574, 672 N.Y.S.2d 407).In opposition, the plaintiff...