Wienclaw v. E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist.

7 Citing cases

  1. EF v. Blind Brook-Rye Union Free Sch. Dist.

    75 Misc. 3d 1206 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Regarding Infant Plaintiffs 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 ( Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 192 AD3d 945, 946 [2d Dept 2021] ). Thus, schools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (id .).

  2. Y. P. v. City of New York

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 4565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The defendants' investigation reports merely established that the plaintiff had been injured in a fall during physical education class, and did not provide the defendants with actual knowledge of the facts underlying the plaintiff's negligent supervision claim (see Matter of Zelin v Blind Brook-Rye Union Free Sch. Dist., 164 A.D.3d 1352, 1353-1354; Matter of Ryder v Garden City School Dist., 277 A.D.2d 388, 388-389). "It is well established that schools 'cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students'" (Matter of R.M. v Board of Educ. of the Long Beach City Sch. Dist., 212 A.D.3d at 814, quoting Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 192 A.D.3d 945, 946).

  3. Fain v. Berry

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3032 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    A school "owes a duty to adequately supervise the students in its care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" (Fernandez v City of Yonkers, 139 A.D.3d 895, 896 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Doe v Rohan, 17 A.D.3d 509, 511). "The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information" (Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 192 A.D.3d 945, 946 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Where alleged negligent supervision results in "'injuries related to an individual's intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must [establish as an element of the cause of action] that the school knew or should have known of the individual's propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual's acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable'" (MCVAWCD-DOE v Columbus Avenue Elementary Sch., 225 A.D.3d 845, 847, quoting Burdo v Cold Spring Harbor Cent. Sch. Dist., 219 A.D.3d 1481, 1482).

  4. Mcvawcd-Doe v. Columbus Ave. Elementary Sch.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1703 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    A school or school district "owes a duty to adequately supervise the students in its care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" (Fernandez v City of Yonkers, 139 A.D.3d 895, 896 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Doe v Rohan, 17 A.D.3d 509, 511). "The standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information" (Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 192 A.D.3d 945, 946 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Where alleged negligent supervision results in "injuries related to an individual's intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must [establish as an element of the claim] that the school knew or should have known of the individual's propensity to engage in such conduct, such that the individual's acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable" (Burdo v Cold Spring Harbor Cent. Sch. Dist., 219 A.D.3d 1481, 1482 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Fuller v Family Servs. of Westchester, Inc., 209 A.D.3d at 984).

  5. R. M. v. Bd. of Educ.

    212 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)   Cited 4 times

    Here, the accident claim form states that three school employees were supervising recess but did not see the infant petitioner become injured. This, standing alone, is insufficient to establish actual knowledge of a potential negligent supervision claim because it is well established that schools " ‘cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students’ " ( Wienclaw v. East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 192 A.D.3d 945, 946, 144 N.Y.S.3d 106, quoting Stephenson v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 1031, 1033, 954 N.Y.S.2d 782, 978 N.E.2d 1251 ; see Matter of Ryder v. Garden City School Dist., 277 A.D.2d 388, 388–389, 716 N.Y.S.2d 97 ). The petitioners also failed to establish that the School Board had actual knowledge of the facts constituting their other two claims (seeMatter of Hampson v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 114 A.D.3d 790, 791–792, 980 N.Y.S.2d 132 ).

  6. J.B. v. Monroe-Woodury Cent. Sch. Dist.

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 32916 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

    "[S]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision." Wienclaw v. East Islip Union Free School District, 192 A.D.3d 945, 946 (2d Dept. 2021).

  7. Millett v. Brookhaven-Comsewogue Union Free Sch. Dist.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 33520 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    Schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44,614 N.Y.S.2d 372 [1994]; see Genova v Town of Clarkstown, 195 A.D.3d 598, 144 N.Y.S.3d 633 [2d Dept 2021]; Chen v City of New York, 194 A.D.3d 904, 149 N.Y.S.3d 190 [2d Dept 2021]). However, schools are not the insurers of the safety of their students, and cannot cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of their students' movements and activities (see Wienclaw v East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist, 192 A.D.3d 945, 144 N.Y.S.3d 106 [2d Dept 2021]; J.F. v Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist, 184 A.D.3d 806,124 N.Y.S.3d 564 [2d Dept 2020]; B.T. v Bethpage Union Free Sch. Dist., 173 A.D.3d 806, 103 N.Y.S.3d 99 [2d Dept 2019]). Moreover, "unanticipated third-party acts causing injury upon a fellow student will generally not give rise to a school's liability in negligence absent actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct" (Brandy B. v Eden Cent. Sch. Dist., 15 NY3d 297,302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 737 [2010]; see Mirand v City of New York, supra; Francis v Mount Vernon Bd. of Educ, 164 A.D.3d 873, 83 N.Y.S.3d 637 [2d Dept 2018]).