O'Neal v. Archdioceses of New YorkO'Neal v. Archdioceses of New York
Lead Opinion
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LaTorella, J.), dated July 12, 2000, which granted the motion of the defendants Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff, Israel O’Neal, was a resident in a nonsecure facility for youths found in need of supervision by the Family Court which was operated by the Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program (hereinafter collectively the respondents). One evening, while O’Neal was waiting with other residents in the cafeteria to obtain items from the bookstore, his roommate, the defendant William Cook, punched him in the face, breaking his jaw. At the time, there were three staff members in the cafeteria supervising 15 to 19 residents, and staff members immediately separated O’Neal and Cook.
The respondents were under a duty to provide adequate supervision to the youths placed in their care to protect them from foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the acts of fellow residents of the facility (see generally, Mirand v City of New York,
The respondents established prima facie that Cook’s action was impulsive and could not reasonably have been anticipated, particularly since O’Neal acknowledged in his deposition testimony that he had not had any previous confrontations with Cook. Moreover, the incident occurred in so short a time span that any lack of supervision was not the proximate cause of the injury (see, Convey v City of Rye School Dist., supra, at 160). The plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the respondents’ liability.
Dissenting Opinion
dissents and votes to reverse the order appealed from, on the law, deny the motion, and reinstate the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program with the following memorandum: A party moving for summary judgment must establish as a matter of law that there are no issues of fact (see, Zuckerman v City of New York,
I agree with the majority that this case should be measured by the standards pertaining to the duty of educational institutions to provide adequate supervision. We part company on the question of whether the record made by the moving defendants was sufficient to negate actual or constructive notice (see, Mirand v City of New York,
The Supreme Court, it seems, was led into error in one small respect that the majority appears to ratify. The Supreme Court articulated that there had been no reports “of any prior specific incidents between the two students.” Prior conduct of the assailing student, however, need not have been directed against the plaintiff. Predicate acts of violence against any students may suffice (see, Moores v City of Newburgh School Dist.,
The record is replete with information about William Cook, the assailant who broke the infant plaintiffs jaw in the instant case. Prom the examinations before trial presented by the moving defendants there emerge ample facts to destroy their prima facie case on the issue of notice. The administrative structure of the Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Compus Program (hereinafter Pius 12) is designed to maintain staff awareness through social workers and other professionals, including “treatment team meetings,” of the background and problems of the residents and whether they might endanger the health or
The information about the behavior of Cook is well documented and includes allegations of his incorrigible behavior and acting out of control. The psychologist reporting to the Family Court on young Mr. Cook stated that his behavioral problems included “fighting and oppositional behavior with suspensions in relation” thereto. This was in the files of Pius 12. Cook had been in bad incidents since he was in the Pius 12 facility. For example, some months before he broke the jaw of the infant plaintiff, Cook was embroiled in a verbal altercation with another resident when he started a fight with him on the side of the cottage where Cook did not belong. When separated, Cook was in a “violent rage.”
Pius 12 uses all this information and disseminates it to supervisory staff including John Perry, a supervisor who was present in the room when Cook punched Israel O’Neal on April 22, 1997. This information is used to establish a profile for a new resident and in determining the level to which a resident is promoted. Evaluations for Cook included “doesn’t want to be managed by anyone; doesn’t listen” and “major problems, tantrums; easily angered, is often irritated, provoked; has tantrums.”
There was sufficient evidence presented by the moving defendants to raise a question as to whether they had knowledge of Cook’s violent tendencies, when Cook punched Israel O’Neal in the jaw, to put them on actual or constructive notice. This knowledge was sufficiently specific notice of the dangerous conduct that caused the infant plaintiffs injury to withstand a motion for summary judgment (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra). The Supreme Court and the majority, however, underscore the impulsive and swift nature of the attack. Of course, lack of adequate supervision will not be the proximate cause of a student’s injury in impulsive and unanticipated circumstances (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra [plaintiff stabbed by fellow student who had had run-in with plaintiffs sister]; Lawes v Board of Educ.,
Finally, whether or not admissible at the trial (cf., Resnikoff v Yagoda,
The motion for summary judgment should have been denied.