Opinion
2018–00219 Index No. 35137/15
10-10-2018
Shawn GASTON, respondent, v. EAST RAMAPO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, appellant.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for appellant. Neimark & Neimark LLP, New City, N.Y. (Ira H. Lapp of counsel), for respondent.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael T. Reagan of counsel), for appellant.
Neimark & Neimark LLP, New City, N.Y. (Ira H. Lapp of counsel), for respondent.
SHERI S. ROMAN, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Thomas E. Walsh II, J.), dated November 28, 2017. The order denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging inadequate security, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
On March 10, 2015, the plaintiff was stabbed during an altercation with a classmate in a hallway at Spring Valley High School in Rockland County. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, East Ramapo Central School District (hereinafter the District), to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging negligent supervision and inadequate security. The District moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff opposed the motion. In an order dated November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the District's motion, and the District appeals.
"Schools 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 ; see RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d 747, 747–748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Guerriero v. Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 150 A.D.3d 831, 832–833, 55 N.Y.S.3d 85 ; Cruz–Martinez v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist., 147 A.D.3d 722, 46 N.Y.S.3d 180 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d 951, 952–953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ). "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 v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; see RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d at 748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d at 952–953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ; Whitfield v. Board of Educ. of City of Mount Vernon, 14 A.D.3d 552, 552, 789 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required, and "an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence" ( Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; see RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d at 748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d at 952–953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ; Whitfield v. Board of Educ. of City of Mount Vernon, 14 A.D.3d at 552–553, 789 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). A plaintiff also must establish that the alleged breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained (see Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d at 50, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d at 748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d at 953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ; Whitfield v. Board of Educ. of City of Mount Vernon, 14 A.D.3d at 553, 789 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). The adequacy of a school's supervision of its students is generally a question left to the trier of fact to resolve, as is the question of whether inadequate supervision was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury (see RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d at 748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; DiGiacomo v. Town of Babylon, 124 A.D.3d 828, 829, 2 N.Y.S.3d 548 ; Braunstein v. Half Hollow Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 104 A.D.3d 893, 894, 962 N.Y.S.2d 340 ).
Here, the District failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the assault on the plaintiff was not foreseeable or that the District's alleged negligent supervision was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (see RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d at 748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Guerriero v. Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 150 A.D.3d at 832–834, 55 N.Y.S.3d 85 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d at 953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ). The District failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether it had knowledge of the offending student's dangerous propensities based on his involvement in other assaultive altercations with fellow students in the recent past (see RT v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist., 153 A.D.3d at 747, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d at 953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ). Thus, the District failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct that caused the alleged injuries to the plaintiff. As to proximate cause, the District failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the subject incident occurred so quickly and spontaneously "that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it" ( Convey v. City of Rye School Dist., 271 A.D.2d 154, 160, 710 N.Y.S.2d 641 ). Since the District did not establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging negligent supervision, we do not consider the sufficiency of the plaintiff's opposition papers in that regard (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny that branch of the District's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging negligent supervision.
However, the District established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging inadequate security by demonstrating that there was no special relationship giving rise to a special duty to protect the plaintiff. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in this regard (see Weisbecker v. West Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 109 A.D.3d 657, 970 N.Y.S.2d 824 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the District's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging inadequate security.
ROMAN, J.P., SGROI, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.