Court Opinion

ID: 9779683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:33:51.009002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:37.945232
License: Public Domain

Ciparick, J. (dissenting in part).
Because I believe a reasonable jury could find that sufficient notice was given to Eden Central School District and Eden Central School District Board of Education (collectively, the school defendants) and that the sexual assault here was a “foreseeable injur[y] proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]), I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding as it relates to the school defendants.
A plaintiff attempting to hold a school district liable for harm to one student caused by another must satisfy a two-part test (see Mirand, 84 NY2d at 49-50). First, to show that the school negligently breached its duty to supervise, a plaintiff must establish “that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused [the] injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” (id. at 49). Second, this breach must have been the proximate cause of the injury, i.e. “under all the circumstances the chain of events that followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence” (id. at 50, citing Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]). Here, a reasonable jury could find both prongs of the test satisfied.
The overarching question, as we emphasized in Mirand, is whether circumstances would have put a “reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” (Mirand, 84 NY2d at 49). This notice may come either from prior, similarly dangerous conduct or from other circumstances that render the injury foreseeable (see e.g. id. at 49-51 [affirming liability where school knew of threats to plaintiff and “(t)he jury needed little more than its own common experience to conclude” that there *304should, have been greater supervision (id. at 51)]). Thus, the Appellate Divisions have found circumstances in which the absence of supervision, without any more specific notice, is so egregious as to give rise to liability (see Doe v Fulton School Dist., 35 AD3d 1194, 1195 [4th Dept 2006]). In Fulton School Dist., for example, the Fourth Department held that “a jury could find that [the alleged sexual assault] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the District’s failure to provide adequate supervision . . . even in the absence of notice of a prior sexual assault” (id. at 1195). Similarly, the Third Department has found that circumstances may be sufficient “to put defendants on notice of a potentially harmful situation” where a 12-year-old student repeatedly sexually assaulted a six-year-old student because “the instances of inappropriate touching occurred on multiple occasions in two different locations over a period of time” (Doe v Board of Educ. of Morris Cent. School, 9 AD3d 588, 591 [2004]). Here, a reasonable jury could find that circumstances were sufficient to put the school defendants on notice that closer supervision was appropriate.
While Robert’s history of mental illness alone might not “put a reasonable person on notice” that he would sexually assault a fellow student (see Mirand, 84 NY2d at 49), this history must be read in conjunction with the school’s actual knowledge that he was frequently interacting closely with a kindergartner on the school bus. As the school defendants indisputably knew, Robert has a history of sometimes violent behavior as well as inappropriate sexual behavior, including exposing himself and masturbating in public. Although he has made remarkable progress, a jury could find that the mother’s communications with the bus driver put the school defendants on notice that something unusual was going on between Robert, an 11 year old with a history of serious mental illness, and Brenna, a five year old who regularly sat with him. According to the mother’s deposition testimony, she told the driver that “Brenna, who was in kindergarten, seems to be interacting with this twelve-year-old [sic].” She allegedly followed up with two letters to the driver, one requesting that her two children sit together and a second requesting that the driver call her to discuss the situation. These communications between the mother and the driver, considered along with Robert’s history, are enough to allow a reasonable jury to find that the school defendants had sufficient notice of a dangerous situation and could have anticipated the sexual assault.
*305With respect to proximate cause, the second prong of the Mirand test, a reasonable jury could find that the absence of adequate supervision on the bus was a proximate cause of Brenna’s injury. As we noted in Mirand, “[p]roximate cause is a question of fact for the jury where varying inferences are possible” (84 NY2d at 51).
Although I would permit the negligent supervision action to go forward against the school defendants, I agree with the majority that the action against Child and Family Services of Erie County (CFS) was properly dismissed. The complaint alleges that CFS failed to warn the school and foster family that Robert needed close supervision at all times, but there is no evidence that it withheld any information or could have anticipated that Robert would sexually assault a fellow student.
Therefore, I would modify by affirming the Appellate Division’s grant of summary judgment to CFS and reversing its order granting summary judgment to the school defendants, and I would reinstate the amended complaint as to the school defendants.
Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur with Judge Jones; Judge Ciparick dissents in part and votes to modify in a separate opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman concurs.
Order affirmed, with costs.