Graven v. Children's Home R.T.F., Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 July 2017
• Docket Number: 524476.
• Citation: 152 A.D.3d 1152,60 N.Y.S.3d 556
• Parties: Kelly GRAVEN et al., Individually and as Parents of their Child, Appellants, v. CHILDREN'S HOME R.T.F., INC., also known as Stillwater R.T.F., also known as Stillwater Residential Treatment Center, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

152 A.D.3d 1152
60 N.Y.S.3d 556

Kelly GRAVEN et al., Individually and as Parents of their Child, Appellants,
v.
CHILDREN'S HOME R.T.F., INC., also known as Stillwater R.T.F., also known as Stillwater Residential Treatment Center, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

524476.

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

July 27, 2017.

60 N.Y.S.3d 557

Law Office of Ronald Benjamin, Binghamton (Ronald R. Benjamin of counsel), for appellants.

60 N.Y.S.3d 558

Mackenzie Hughes, LLP, Syracuse (Ryan T. Emery of counsel), for respondents.

Before: EGAN JR., J.P., LYNCH, DEVINE, CLARK and AARONS, JJ.

EGAN JR., J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered September 12, 2016 in Chenango County, which granted certain defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiffs are the parents of a child who was placed in October 2012 under the care and supervision of defendant Children's Home R.T.F., Inc. (hereinafter the facility), a residential treatment facility in Broome County. In February 2014, plaintiffs commenced this action against the facility and others, alleging—in the first cause of action—negligence, gross negligence, interference with the child's educational rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. [hereinafter IDEA] ) and gender discrimination, and raising substantive and procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Certain defendants successfully removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and, following service of an answer and additional motion practice, all of plaintiffs' federal claims, including their IDEA claims, were dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs' remaining state claims—denominated by District Court as sounding in negligence and gross negligence—were remanded.

In the interim, Mental Hygiene Legal Service commenced a separate proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.25 to determine the suitability and willingness of the child to remain at the facility. Plaintiffs were named as interested parties to that proceeding and, following an April 2014 conference, the parties consented to an order providing for the child's discharge from the facility. As the parties were unable to reach an agreement as to the specific discharge plan, a hearing ensued to determine an appropriate placement for the child. At the conclusion thereof, Supreme Court—crediting the proof tendered by Mental Hygiene Legal Service—ordered that the child be discharged from the facility to a community residence offering a less intensive level of care.

The facility and certain defendant staff members (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) thereafter moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) —contending that certain of plaintiffs' claims were barred by principles of collateral estoppel and that the balance thereof failed to state a cause of action. Supreme Court granted defendants' motion, finding that the core premise underlying plaintiffs' negligence claims—namely, that their child suffered from reactive attachment disorder (hereinafter RAD) and, therefore, required a more specialized and intensive treatment...