Cuomo v. State of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 01991
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2025Background
- In 2018, Joao Souza, a student at Binghamton University, was fatally stabbed on campus by fellow student Michael Roque, who had expressed hostility towards Souza before the attack.
- Roque did not reside in Souza's dormitory and accessed the building without a swipe card; the incident occurred after he pleaded guilty to murder.
- The administrator of Souza's estate filed a negligence claim against the State of New York, alleging the University failed to provide adequate security and failed to protect Souza after becoming aware of Roque's threats.
- The focus of the appeal was whether the University owed a duty to protect Souza, given that University counselors were aware of Roque's hostility.
- The Court of Claims granted partial summary judgment for the State, dismissing the "duty to protect" theory and denying further discovery; the claimant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| University's duty to protect from student harm | Univ. owed a duty due to specific knowledge of Roque's threats | No general duty under in loco parentis or between college students | Court reversed: a duty existed based on proprietary mental health function and specific threat |
| Duty derived from counseling/mental health | Counselors should have referred Roque's threats for assessment | Any negligence based on broader campus security/administrative duty | No special duty needed if acting as mental health provider; standard duty applies |
| Discovery regarding threat assessment policies | Requested materials are relevant to claim of negligence | Discovery should be precluded as no duty exists | Materials must be produced; denial of discovery was an abuse of discretion |
| Application of McEnaney v State | McEnaney distinguishable: plaintiff targeted, counseling context | McEnaney precludes duty without special relationship | McEnaney does not control as threats here were specific and in context of mental health care |
Key Cases Cited
- Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 NY2d 175 (N.Y. 1987) (declined in loco parentis at university level, no general duty to prevent harm from students)
- Palsgraf v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 (N.Y. 1928) (establishes foreseeability and duty as foundational for negligence)
- Brown v. University of Rochester, 216 AD3d 1328 (a university may have a legal duty when aware of specific, credible threats on campus)