Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Joyce WALDON, Respondent, v. LITTLE FLOWER CHILDREN'S SERVICE et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted, and the certified question answered in the negative.
Plaintiff foster parent was stabbed by her foster child's biological mother as she was leaving the premises of defendant Little Flower Children's Service, a private social services agency, after the agency supervised a visit between the child and her biological mother. Supreme Court denied the motion of the agency and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the Appellate Division affirmed, with one Justice dissenting, concluding that triable issues of fact necessitated a trial. We disagree.
Assuming the agency owed the foster parent a duty of care, no evidence was proffered raising a question of fact on the issues of breach or causation. Although the biological mother had a history of mental illness, she had no history of violence, nor had she threatened agency staff or the foster parent in the past. The agency therefore had no reason to anticipate a violent outburst or to take steps to prevent contact between the biological mother and the foster parent. In addition, due to the suddenness of the attack and its location, the agency's security staff had no opportunity to intervene to assist the foster parent. Under the circumstances of this case, defendants-appellants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.
MEMORANDUM.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur in memorandum.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 17, 2004
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)