Wienclaw v. E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 17 March 2021
• Docket Number: Index No. 602146/17,2019–11264
• Citation: 144 N.Y.S.3d 106,192 A.D.3d 945
• Parties: Linda WIENCLAW, etc., respondent, v. EAST ISLIP UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, etc., appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 945

144 N.Y.S.3d 106

Linda WIENCLAW, etc., respondent,

v.EAST ISLIP UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, etc., appellant.

2019–11264

Index No. 602146/17

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

Argued—November 30, 2020

March 17, 2021

Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for appellant.

Charles N. Pizzolo (Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. [Jonathan I. Edelstein ], of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (William G. Ford, J.), dated September 11, 2019. The order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action on behalf of her son (hereinafter the child), alleging negligent supervision and negligent training by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant allowed the child to be assaulted by nonparty J.P. while at school. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and provided evidence that the assistant principal of the school was informed a few days prior to the assault that J.P. intended to fight with someone. The assistant principal warned J.P. of the consequences of fighting with anyone, which included suspension, and informed J.P.’s mother of the alleged threat and of the consequences to J.P. if he engaged in any fighting. J.P. did not tell the assistant principal the name of the intended target, and denied any intention to fight with anyone. Nonetheless, the assistant principal advised the head of school security that it was rumored that J.P. was intending to fight someone.

The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the alleged assault was not foreseeable, or that its alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the child's injuries, and that the defendant failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that the defendant did not have reason to know of any of its employees’ alleged misconduct to warrant dismissal of the claim of negligent training.

"Under the doctrine that a school district acts in loco parentis with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a ‘special duty’ to the students themselves" ( Ferguson v. City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 849, 850, 988 N.Y.S.2d 207, quoting Pratt v. Robinson, 39 N.Y.2d 554, 560, 384 N.Y.S.2d 749, 349 N.E.2d 849 ). Thus, schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see Deb B. v. Longwood Cent. Sch. Dist., 165 A.D.3d 1212, 1212–1213, 87 N.Y.S.3d 625 ). "Schools are not, however, insurers of students’ safety and ‘cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students’ " ( Stephenson v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 1031, 1033, 954 N.Y.S.2d 782, 978 N.E.2d 1251, quoting Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ). "The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...