Summary
defining "child comes before" to mean "reveals facts which provide a mandatory reporter with reasonable cause to suspect abuse to trigger reporting requirement
Summary of this case from Cuacuas Estate of P.C. v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist.Opinion
2013-03-20
DIANA MICHELLE G. (Anonymous), etc., appellant, v. BEDFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents. (and third-party actions).
Finkelstein & Partners, Newburgh, N.Y. (Andrew L. Spitz of counsel), for appellant. O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson, Watson & Loftus LLP (Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. [Christine Gasser], of counsel), for respondent Bedford Central School District.
Finkelstein & Partners, Newburgh, N.Y. (Andrew L. Spitz of counsel), for appellant. O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson, Watson & Loftus LLP (Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. [Christine Gasser], of counsel), for respondent Bedford Central School District.
Henderson & Brennan, White Plains, N.Y. (John T. Brennan and Lauren Demase of counsel), for respondent Victoria Graboski.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Glenn A. Kaminska and Nicholas M. Cardascia of counsel), for respondent Kelly Cieslinski–Schluter.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from the defendants' failure to report a case of suspected child abuse as required by Social Services Law § 413, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered October 21, 2011, as granted the motion of the defendant Bedford Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Victoria Graboski and Kelly Cieslinski–Schluter which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The defendants submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they did not knowingly or willfully fail to report suspected child abuse ( seeSocial Services Law § 420[2] ). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents.