From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gibbs v. Le´man Manhattan Preparatory Sch.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 25, 2022
201 A.D.3d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

Opinion

14717 Index No. 150540/19 Case No. 2020–03228

01-25-2022

Debbi GIBBS, as Law Guardian ON BEHALF OF Minor Child, B.E., etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. LE´MAN MANHATTAN PREPARATORY SCHOOL, Defendant–Respondent.

Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Daniel E. Dugan of counsel), for appellants. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Craig A. Convissar of counsel), for respondent.


Stewart Lee Karlin Law Group, P.C., New York (Daniel E. Dugan of counsel), for appellants.

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Craig A. Convissar of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, Scarpulla, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered May 28, 2020, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for negligent supervision of students, as the complaint is devoid of facts showing that defendant Le´man Manhattan Preparatory School (Le´man) had knowledge or notice of the sort of conduct that allegedly injured plaintiff B.E., who was a student at Le´man ( Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 [1994] ). The suggestion that rumors about B.E. would not have spread if Le´man had "cleared" his name, allowed him back to school, or educated its students on cyber-bullying does not rise above mere speculation (see Stephenson v. City of New York, 85 A.D.3d 523, 925 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 2011], affd 19 N.Y.3d 1031, 954 N.Y.S.2d 782, 978 N.E.2d 1251 [2012] ). Plaintiffs also failed to state a claim for negligent supervision of employees, as the complaint does not adequately allege that Le´man knew or should have known that any of its employees had the propensity to commit the alleged tortious act (see Sheila C. v. Povich, 11 A.D.3d 120, 129–130, 781 N.Y.S.2d 342 [1st Dept. 2004] ).

Furthermore, with respect to their breach of contract claim, plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that Le´man agreed, through a specific provision in its handbook, to reinstate students under the circumstances present here or "clear" a student's name to preserve his or her reputation (see Gordon & Breach Science Publs. v. New York Sys. Exch., 267 A.D.2d 52, 699 N.Y.S.2d 673 [1st Dept. 1999] ). To the extent plaintiffs claim that Le´man failed to create an environment free from bullying and harassment in violation of its handbook, such allegations are too vague and conclusory to support a claim for breach of contract (see Gordon v. Dino De Laurentiis Corp., 141 A.D.2d 435, 436, 529 N.Y.S.2d 777 [1st Dept. 1988] ).


Summaries of

Gibbs v. Le´man Manhattan Preparatory Sch.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 25, 2022
201 A.D.3d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
Case details for

Gibbs v. Le´man Manhattan Preparatory Sch.

Case Details

Full title:Debbi GIBBS, as Law Guardian ON BEHALF OF Minor Child, B.E., etc., et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 25, 2022

Citations

201 A.D.3d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)
157 N.Y.S.3d 704