Liang v. Rosedale Group Home
| Decision Date | 27 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2004-08022. |
| Parties | ANDY LIANG et al., Respondents, v. ROSEDALE GROUP HOME et al., Respondents, and CENTER FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
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 and all cross claims asserted against the appellants are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
On June 5, 1999, the then 15-year-old infant plaintiff was placed in a group home operated by the defendant Center for Children & Families (hereinafter the child care agency). On the morning of his arrival, the infant plaintiff allegedly was sexually assaulted by another teenage resident of the facility. A second incident of sexual assault occurred later that afternoon. The infant plaintiff reported the incidents on the following day, and the resident who had assaulted him was arrested. The infant plaintiff and his mother subsequently commenced this action against several parties, including the child care agency, the City of New York, Administration for Children's Services, and the Department of Social Services (hereinafter the City defendants), seeking to recover damages on a theory of negligent supervision. After depositions had been conducted, the City defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and the child care agency separately moved for the same relief. The Supreme Court denied the motions, concluding that the defendants had notice of a dangerous condition after the first assault. We reverse.
We reject the child care agency's contention that it was entitled to the qualified immunity protection afforded by Social Services Law § 419. "It is well settled that a claim of qualified immunity cannot be raised to bar inquiry into an agency's or county's alleged negligent supervision of children in foster care" (Merice v County of Westchester, 305 AD2d 383, 384 [2003]; see Mosher-Simons v County of Allegany, 99 NY2d 214 [2002]; Barnes v County of Nassau...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips ex rel. Green v. City of New York
...which cawed injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.'" Liang v. Rosedale Group Home, 19 A.D.3d 654, 799 N.Y.S.2d 69, 71 (App. Div.2d Dep't 2005) (quoting Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263, 266 (1994)); Merice......
-
George v. Windham, 2017–12890
...72 A.D.3d at 151, 895 N.Y.S.2d 446 ; Simpson v. County of Dutchess, 35 A.D.3d 712, 713, 826 N.Y.S.2d 678 ; Liang v. Rosedale Group Home, 19 A.D.3d 654, 655, 799 N.Y.S.2d 69 ). We agree with the Supreme Court that Graham Windham was entitled to dismissal of so much of the negligence causes o......
-
Schnorr v. Emeritus Corp.
...879, 881, 810 N.Y.S.2d 544;cf. Royston v. Long Is. Med. Ctr., Inc., 81 A.D.3d 806, 807, 917 N.Y.S.2d 253;Liang v. Rosedale Group Home, 19 A.D.3d 654, 655–656, 799 N.Y.S.2d 69). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met its initial burden of proof, we conclude that plaintiff raised an issu......
-
Keizer v. Sco Family of Servs.
...damages for negligence in the selection of foster parents and in supervision of the foster home ( see Liang v. Rosedale Group Home, 19 A.D.3d 654, 655, 799 N.Y.S.2d 69; [991 N.Y.S.2d 105]Merice v. County of Westchester, 305 A.D.2d 383, 384, 757 N.Y.S.2d 903; Bartels v. County of Westchester......