From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ferguson v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 18, 2014
118 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-18

Arlene FERGUSON, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.

Arlene Ferguson, Kew Gardens, N.Y., appellant, pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.



Arlene Ferguson, Kew Gardens, N.Y., appellant, pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Elizabeth I. Freedman of counsel), for respondents.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ash, J.), dated April 18, 2012, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In 2008, while employed by the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter the Department) as a school social worker, the plaintiff allegedly was injured when two kindergarten students collided with her in a school hallway. The plaintiff commenced this action against the Department and the City of New York, alleging negligent supervision. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

A school district may not be held liable for the negligent performance of its governmental function of supervising children in its charge, at least in the absence of a special duty to the person injured ( see Dinardo v. City of New York, 13 N.Y.3d 872, 874, 893 N.Y.S.2d 818, 921 N.E.2d 585;Kochanski v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d 1050, 1052, 908 N.Y.S.2d 260;Stinson v. Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 A.D.3d 847, 847–848, 877 N.Y.S.2d 400;Goga v. Binghamton City School Dist., 302 A.D.2d 650, 651, 754 N.Y.S.2d 739). 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 ( Pratt v. Robinson, 39 N.Y.2d 554, 560, 384 N.Y.S.2d 749, 349 N.E.2d 849;see Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263;Stinson v. Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 A.D.3d at 847–848, 877 N.Y.S.2d 400;cf. Williams v. Weatherstone, –––N.Y.3d ––––, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.2d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03425, *13 [2014] ). Accordingly, a school district may be held liable to a student when it breaches that duty, so long as all other necessary elements of a negligence cause of action are established ( see Braunstein v. Half Hollow Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 104 A.D.3d 893, 894, 962 N.Y.S.2d 340). The special duty owed to the students themselves does not, however, extend, as a general matter, to teachers, administrators, and other adults on or off of school premises ( see Stinson v. Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 A.D.3d at 847–848, 877 N.Y.S.2d 400;Goga v. Binghamton City School Dist., 302 A.D.2d at 650–651, 754 N.Y.S.2d 739;Sampson v. Board of Educ. Of City of N.Y., 255 A.D.2d 434, 435, 680 N.Y.S.2d 594;cf. Kochanski v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d 1050, 908 N.Y.S.2d 260).

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe the plaintiff a special duty ( see Stinson v. Roosevelt U.F.S. D., 61 A.D.3d at 847–848, 877 N.Y.S.2d 400). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, it is irrelevant that, unlike other school personnel, she did not personally have an obligation to implement any portion of the school's safety procedures ( see generally Pendulik v. East Hampton Union Free School Dist., 17 A.D.3d 334, 335, 792 N.Y.S.2d 583). We need not determine whether, in supervising their students, the defendants were performing a ministerial, as opposed to a discretionary, function ( see Dinardo v. City of New York, 13 N.Y.3d at 874, 893 N.Y.S.2d 818, 921 N.E.2d 585;Kochanski v. City of New York, 76 A.D.3d at 1051, 908 N.Y.S.2d 260).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Stinson v. Roosevelt U.F.S.D., 61 A.D.3d at 848, 877 N.Y.S.2d 400).


Summaries of

Ferguson v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jun 18, 2014
118 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Ferguson v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Arlene FERGUSON, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.

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

Date published: Jun 18, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 849 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 849
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4464

Citing Cases

Brumer v. City of N.Y.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the school defendants' motion. A school district may not be held…

Wilson v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ.

The court granted the defendants' converted motion, and the plaintiff appeals. A school district may not be…