Cuomo v. State of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 01991
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2025Background
- In 2018, Binghamton University student Joao Souza was fatally stabbed in his dormitory by fellow student Michael Roque, who had previously expressed hostility toward Souza to university personnel.
- Roque was not a resident of Souza's dorm and accessed it by following other students; he later pleaded guilty to murder.
- The administrator of Souza's estate (Cuomo) sued the State of New York, claiming the University was negligent in failing to provide adequate security and failing to act on specific threats made by Roque against Souza.
- The University had threat assessment and referral procedures, but it was unclear if they were triggered or followed; some relevant documents and training materials were sought in discovery.
- The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the State, holding there was no legal duty to protect Souza from Roque and denied requests for further discovery on that theory.
- The Appellate Division reviewed whether a duty existed and if more discovery was warranted on the University’s response to threats raised in the context of its mental health services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether University owes duty to act on threats by a student to another student known through mental health services | University knew of specific threats, owed duty to act or warn | No duty exists under campus student relationship; Eiseman applies | University may owe duty in proprietary, mental health provider role |
| Duty to provide security as landlord | University didn't provide adequate dorm security | Only landlord; no special duty unless special relationship | Not decided on appeal |
| Appropriateness of granting summary judgment | Fact questions remain about policy scope and application | No legal duty, facts immaterial | Summary judgment improper; factual issues require discovery |
| Compelling additional discovery | Needed to assess policy, guidelines, compliance | Irrelevant without duty | Discovery should be granted, court erred in denying |
Key Cases Cited
- Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 NY2d 175 (N.Y. 1987) (generally, no duty for university to protect students from peers solely by virtue of student status)
- Schrempf v. State of New York, 66 NY2d 289 (N.Y. 1985) (mental health services by state may impose proprietary function, not governmental)
- Brown v. University of Rochester, 216 AD3d 1328 (3d Dept 2023) (university may owe duty where aware of targeted on-campus dangers to students)
- McEnaney v. State of New York, 267 AD2d 748 (3d Dept 1999) (no duty to student at large without special relationship, but distinguishable from targeted threats scenario)
- Palsgraf v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 (N.Y. 1928) (clear articulation of duty and proximate cause as elements of negligence)