Cuomo v. State of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 01991
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2025Background
- In 2018, Joao Souza, a Binghamton University student, was fatally stabbed in his dormitory by another student, Michael Roque, who had previously expressed hostility toward Souza.
- Roque was not a resident of the dorm where the attack occurred and entered the building after other students exited.
- The administrator of Souza's estate filed a negligence claim against the State of New York, alleging Binghamton University failed to protect Souza despite knowledge of threats from Roque.
- University records showed Roque conveyed threats about Souza to the university's Counseling Center before the attack.
- The University had a written Threat Assessment Policy, but ambiguity existed regarding the procedures for internal referrals and response.
- At trial, the lower court granted summary judgment to the State, finding the University owed no duty to protect Souza, and denied the estate’s motion to compel further discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to protect from other students | University had knowledge of specific, credible threats to Souza from Roque and failed to act | Universities generally have no duty to protect students from other students absent a special relationship | The University owed a duty to act reasonably in response to specific, known threats per its own policies |
| Application of Eiseman v State | Not seeking generalized protection, but duty based on known, targeted hostility in provision of mental health services | Eiseman bars imposing duty on University for acts of other students without special relationship | Eiseman distinguishable; duty exists where University has actual knowledge of credible, specific threats |
| Scope of discovery | Requested policies, guidelines, and training materials relevant to the claim | Further discovery unnecessary since no duty existed | Discovery relevant and necessary; motion to compel granted |
| Proprietary vs. governmental function | Negligence arose from provision of mental health services (proprietary) | University security is a governmental function | Failure to follow internal threat protocols in proprietary mental health context triggers ordinary duty of care |
Key Cases Cited
- Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 NY2d 175 (NY high court held colleges generally owe no duty to protect students in loco parentis)
- Schrempf v. State of New York, 66 NY2d 289 (established duty of care in provision of proprietary medical/mental health services)
- Palsgraf v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 (seminal case on scope of duty and foreseeability in negligence)
- Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 26 NY3d 563 (duty to protect specific, identifiable third parties from harm)
- Brown v. University of Rochester, 216 AD3d 1328 (university duty to act on credible reports of on-campus criminal conduct)
- McEnaney v. State of New York, 267 AD2d 748 (duty limited to specific, identifiable plaintiffs; distinguished here)