Cuomo v. State of New York
2025 NY Slip Op 01991
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2025Background
- Joao Souza, a student at Binghamton University, was murdered by fellow student Michael Roque, who had previously expressed hostility toward Souza during counseling sessions.
- Roque did not live in Souza’s dorm but gained entry the night of the stabbing after two students exited, allowing him to follow them in.
- The decedent’s estate brought a negligence/wrongful death claim against the State (on behalf of the University), alleging failure to provide sufficient security and failure to respond to known threats from Roque.
- University staff, including the Dean of Students, confirmed the existence of policies for threat assessment and mandated exceptions to counselor-patient confidentiality.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the State and denied further discovery on the duty to protect theory, holding the University owed Souza no special duty to protect against student criminal acts.
- The appellate court reversed, finding triable issues regarding whether University counselors failed to act reasonably upon learning of Roque’s threats under the University’s threat assessment policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the University owed a duty to protect Souza from Roque | Counselors knew of targeted threats and had policies to follow | No special duty to protect student from another student's acts | University may owe duty due to actual knowledge and policies |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Unresolved material facts, especially re: threat assessment | No cognizable legal theory, duty derived from status | Summary judgment improper; material facts remain |
| Whether further discovery should be permitted | Needed to clarify policies, referrals, and training | Moot, as no duty owed | Discovery should be allowed |
| Application of Eiseman v State of NY to campus threats | Fact pattern distinguishable; duty arose from counselor knowledge | Eiseman bars duty; in loco parentis rejected | Eiseman not controlling; this is a targeted threat scenario |
Key Cases Cited
- Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 NY2d 175 (N.Y. 1987) (colleges generally owe no duty to shield students from others' dangerous acts; in loco parentis rejected)
- Brown v. University of Rochester, 216 AD3d 1328 (3d Dep't 2023) (university has duty when it has actual notice of credible threats on campus)
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 NY 339 (N.Y. 1928) (classic proximate cause duty holding)
- Schrempf v. State of New York, 66 NY2d 289 (N.Y. 1985) (duty in provision of mental health services is proprietary, not governmental)
- McEnaney v. State of New York, 267 AD2d 748 (3d Dep't 1999) (duty limited where threat is to general student body, not specific persons)