Knaszak v. Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 16 July 2021
• Docket Number: 380,CA 20-01030
• Citation: 196 A.D.3d 1141,152 N.Y.S.3d 199
• Parties: Carly KNASZAK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HAMBURG CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

196 A.D.3d 1141

152 N.Y.S.3d 199

Carly KNASZAK, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.HAMBURG CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant.

380

CA 20-01030

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

Entered: July 16, 2021

HURWITZ & FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (ANASTASIA M. MCCARTHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CARL W. MORGAN, P.C., HAMBURG (CARL W. MORGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, TROUTMAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of defendant's alleged negligent supervision following an incident in which plaintiff was sexually assaulted by another student while they were alone in a classroom. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is well established 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 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 [1994] ; see Brandy B. v. Eden Cent. School Dist. , 15 N.Y.3d 297, 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 [2010] ). "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 , 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; see Brandy B. , 15 N.Y.3d at 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 ). "Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct is generally required because, obviously, school personnel cannot reasonably be expected to guard against all of the sudden, spontaneous acts that take place among students daily" ( Mirand , 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ). Thus, "an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act" ( id. ). "Summary judgment must be granted if the proponent makes ‘a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact,’ and the opponent fails to rebut that showing" ( Brandy B. , 15 N.Y.3d at 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304, quoting Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986] ).

Here, defendant met its initial burden on the motion by establishing that the "sexual assault against [plaintiff by the student] was an unforeseeable act that, without sufficiently specific knowledge or notice, could not have been reasonably anticipated" ( id. ), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see id. at 303, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 ; see generally Alvarez , 68 N.Y.2d at 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ). Defendant's submissions, including plaintiff's testimony, established the undisputed fact that plaintiff and the student did not know each other and did not have any prior interactions before the sexual assault (see Francis v. Mount Vernon Bd. of Educ. , 164 A.D.3d 873, 875, 83 N.Y.S.3d 637 [2d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 913, 2019 WL 191895 [2019] ; Jake F. v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist. , 94 A.D.3d 804, 805, 944 N.Y.S.2d 152 [2d Dept. 2012] ). Although the student had an extensive and troubling disciplinary history that resulted in several detentions and suspensions, such history did not contain any infractions for physically aggressive conduct directed at other people, sexually inappropriate behavior, or threats of physical or sexual violence (see Emmanuel B. v. City of New York , 131 A.D.3d 831, 832, 15 N.Y.S.3d 790 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Jennifer R. v. City of Syracuse , 43 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 844 N.Y.S.2d 523 [4th Dept. 2007] ; Murnyack v. Rebon , 21 A.D.3d 1406, 1406-1407, 801 N.Y.S.2d 658 [4th Dept. 2005] ; see also Brandy B. , 15 N.Y.3d at 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 ).

Contrary to the court's determination, while the student's history involved attendance issues, insubordination toward school staff, inappropriate verbal outbursts, being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, possession and sale of drugs, and academic problems, that history did not raise a triable issue of fact whether defendant had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the injury-causing conduct inasmuch as it was not similar to the student's physically and sexually aggressive behavior that injured plaintiff (see McBride v. City of New York , 160 A.D.3d 414, 414, 70 N.Y.S.3d 836 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Taylor v. Dunkirk City School Dist. , 12 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 785 N.Y.S.2d 623 [4th Dept. 2004] ; Sanzo v. Solvay Union Free School Dist. , 299 A.D.2d 878, 878, 750 N.Y.S.2d 252 [4th Dept. 2002] ; Morman v. Ossining Union Free School Dist. , 297 A.D.2d 788, 789, 747 N.Y.S.2d 586 [2d Dept. 2002] ). "More significantly, [the student's] prior history did not include any sexually aggressive behavior" ( Brandy B. , 15 N.Y.3d at 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 ). We also agree with defendant that the court impermissibly drew an unsubstantiated and speculative inference that the student's disclosure to a school social worker about being a victim of sexual abuse during his childhood, coupled with his substance abuse, should have provided defendant with notice of the student's propensity to commit sexual assault (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York , 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ).

In sum, "without evidence of any prior conduct similar to the unanticipated injury-causing act, this claim for negligent supervision must fail" ( Brandy B. , 15 N.Y.3d at 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 ).

All concur except Bannister, J., who dissents and votes to affirm in the following memorandum:

I respectfully dissent and would affirm. I agree with the majority that "schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students, and ‘will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision’ " ( Brandy B. v. Eden Cent. School Dist. , 15 N.Y.3d 297, 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 [2010], quoting Mirand v. City of New York , 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 [1994] ). A school is "obligated to exercise such care of their students ‘as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances’ " ( David v. County of Suffolk , 1 N.Y.3d 525, 526, 775 N.Y.S.2d 229, 807 N.E.2d 278 [2003], quoting Mirand , 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637...