TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Winter v. Board of Education

Jermaine Winter v. Board of Education of City of New York

Winter v. Bd. of Educ., 270 A.D.2d 343 (2000)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 13, 2000
Citations
270 A.D.2d 343704 N.Y.S.2d 1422000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2688

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated January 3, 2000, which, upon an order of the same court, dated September 27, 1998, *344 granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs’ notice of appeal from the order dated September 27, 1998, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff was injured when a fellow elementary school student slashed him in the face with a razor during an altercation just outside the school building after dismissal. At trial, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, contending that the plaintiffs had failed, as a matter of law, to establish that the defendants had breached a duty of care owed to the infant plaintiff, or that any breach was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court granted the motion.

Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44 ; Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560 ). Here, the evidence that the plaintiffs adduced at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that the infant plaintiff was within the school’s custody and control at the time of the altercation, and that the defendants therefore owed him a duty of adequate supervision. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for judgment in their favor as a matter of law was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2002: 12004: 12006: 12017: 120022026peak 2002 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sheila C. v. Povich11 A.D.3d 120 (2004)
  2. Morning v. Riverhead Central School District27 A.D.3d 435 (2006)
  3. Bowers v. City of New York294 A.D.2d 526 (2002)
  4. Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. City of New York2017 NY Slip Op 962

Most recent

  1. Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. City of New York2017 NY Slip Op 962
  2. Morning v. Riverhead Central School District27 A.D.3d 435 (2006)
  3. Sheila C. v. Povich11 A.D.3d 120 (2004)
  4. Bowers v. City of New York294 A.D.2d 526 (2002)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Mirand v. City of N.Y., 637 N.E.2d 263 (N.Y. 1994) 582
Pratt v. Robinson, 349 N.E.2d 849 (N.Y. 1976) 172

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list