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.
Michael R. SANZO and Sherrie A. Sanzo, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SOLVAY UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant, Darryl B. Rotolo, II, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Michael R. Sanzo (plaintiff) when he was assaulted by defendant Darryl B. Rotolo, II, a fellow high school student, in the school cafeteria. Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Solvay Union Free School District (School District) for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and cross claim against it. The School District met its initial burden on the motion by establishing that it did not have “specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused the injury” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263), and neither plaintiff nor Rotolo raised an issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718). Although the principal of the high school was aware of verbal taunting between plaintiff and Rotolo, there was no proof that either student previously had engaged in violent or threatening behavior that “would or should have forewarned the School District” of the assault (Hanley v. Hornbeck, 127 A.D.2d 905, 907, 512 N.Y.S.2d 262; see Janukajtis v. Fallon, 284 A.D.2d 428, 430, 726 N.Y.S.2d 451). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the School District had the requisite knowledge or notice, we conclude that the School District established that the assault occurred so suddenly that no amount of supervision would have prevented it. Thus, any purported negligence by the School District based on its alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (see Convey v. City of Rye School Dist., 271 A.D.2d 154, 160, 710 N.Y.S.2d 641; Foster v. New Berlin Cent. School Dist., 246 A.D.2d 880, 881, 667 N.Y.S.2d 994; see also Janukajtis, 284 A.D.2d at 430, 726 N.Y.S.2d 451).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the amended complaint and cross claim against defendant Solvay Union Free School District are dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 15, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, 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)