Murray v. Research Found. St. Univ. NY

• Decision Date: 02 May 2001
• Docket Number: ET,DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDEN,DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT,PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
• Citation: 723 N.Y.S.2d 805,283 A.D.2d 995
• Parties: (A.D. 4 Dept. 2001) TERESA MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JOHN DOE, AN INFANT,, v. RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, A/K/A EDUCATIONAL TALENT SEARCH,, ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,AL., DEFENDANT. CA 00-2621. (Monroe Co.) : FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 805

723 N.Y.S.2d 805 (A.D. 4 Dept. 2001)

TERESA MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JOHN DOE, AN INFANT, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, A/K/A EDUCATIONAL

TALENT SEARCH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT,

ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

CA 00-2621. (Monroe Co.)

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE DIVISION: FOURTH JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

May 2, 2001

Micheal L. DiGaetano, defendant-respondent

Charles L. Davis, for plaintiff-respondent.

Jonathan B. Fellows, for defendant-respondent.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, SCUDDER, KEHOE AND BURNS, JJ.

Memorandum:

Plaintiff's son was sexually assaulted by defendant Reginald Wright, an employee of defendant Research Foundation of the State University of New York, a/k/a Educational Talent Search (Foundation). Wright coordinated the Educational Talent Search program in the middle school that plaintiff's son attended and defendant Rochester City School District (District) provided him with an office there. Although plaintiff's son was not enrolled in the program, he was released from his classes on the authority of student passes issued by Wright, who sexually assaulted him in Wright's office on a weekly basis over a six-month period.

Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the Foundation for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The Foundation met its initial burden by establishing as a matter of law that it was not negligent in hiring or retaining Wright, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562). The Foundation presented evidence that it conducted an extensive interview and obtained written references prior to hiring Wright. Absent facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to suspect that Wright had dangerous propensities, the Foundation had no duty to investigate further before hiring Wright (see, K. I. v New York City Bd. of Educ., 256 A.D.2d 189, 191-192; Kenneth R. v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159, 163, cert denied 522 U.S. 967, lv dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 848). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, there is no evidence in the record that a routine background check would have revealed that Wright had a propensity to harm children (cf., Doe v County of Wayne, 269 A.D.2d 802). The Foundation further established that it was not negligent in retaining Wright as its employee because it neither knew nor had reason to know that Wright posed a risk to children (see, Piniewski v Panepinto, 267 A.D.2d 1087, 1088; see also, Farrell v McIntosh, 221 A.D.2d 312, 313-314, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 809; Curtis v County of Oneida, 248 A.D.2d 999).

The court properly denied the motion of the District seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The District has "the duty to exercise the same degree of care and supervision over the pupils under its control as a reasonably prudent parent would exercise under the same circumstances [citation omitted]. The...