Summary
In Schlecker, supra, another case relied upon by the Defendant, the plaintiff was struck by a fellow student after the two had exchanged a few words.
Summary of this case from GOFF v. ROOSEVELT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICTOpinion
May 15, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed as against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
On March 4, 1983, shortly after the commencement of the school day at about 7:30 A.M., the defendant Byron Murtha, without first obtaining the required pass from his teacher, left the classroom, entered the hallway, and approached the plaintiff Robert J. Schlecker who was standing in front of his own locker. They exchanged a few words and then Byron allegedly hit Robert.
Assuming, arguendo, that there exists a triable issue of fact with respect to the appellant school district's allegedly negligent supervision, liability for any such negligent supervision does not lie absent a showing that it constitutes a proximate cause of the injury sustained (see, Alferoff v Casagrande, 122 A.D.2d 183, 184).
At bar, there is no factual basis to conclude either that the appellant had any actual knowledge constituting "notice of a particular danger at a particular time" (Lawes v Board of Educ., 16 N.Y.2d 302, 306), or that the altercation which caused the injury was anything other than an unanticipated independent act of another student (Rock v Central Sq. School Dist., 113 A.D.2d 1008, 1009). In short, there is no continuous chain of causation that could reasonably connect the appellant's allegedly negligent supervision to the plaintiff's injury.
Since the appellant's alleged negligence could not, as a matter of law, have caused plaintiff's injury, summary judgment is granted in favor of the appellant dismissing the complaint as against it. Lawrence, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.