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.
D.R., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, Catholic Guardian Services et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sabrina B. Kraus, S.), entered May 20, 2024, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion of defendants Catholic Guardian Services, Catholic Guardian Society, Catholic Guardian Society and Home Bureau, Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children, Catholic Charities of Staten Island, and St. Michael's Home for Children (collectively, St. Michael's Home) to dismiss plaintiff's cause of action for premises liability (fourth cause of action), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the cause of action for premises liability dismissed.
This action, brought pursuant to the Child Victims Act (CPLR 214–g), arises from abuse allegedly suffered by plaintiff after she was removed from her parents' care by the municipal defendants and placed in residential group foster care with St. Michael's Home. Plaintiff alleges that on numerous occasions from 1957 to 1958, she was sexually abused by an individual who was “acting as a counselor, teacher, trustee, director, officer, employee, agent, servant, or volunteer” for defendants.
Supreme Court should have dismissed the cause of action for premises liability on the ground that it is duplicative of the cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and/or direction (NHRSD) (see Nouel v. 325 Wadsworth Realty LLC, 112 A.D.3d 493, 494, 977 N.Y.S.2d 217 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 904, 2014 WL 2521716 [2014]). In contrast with the cause of action for negligence, which is premised upon a heightened duty owed to the infant plaintiff, the cause of action for NHRSD relies on the same facts, requires the same elements, and seeks the same relief as the cause of action based upon premises liability (see Nouel, 112 A.D.3d at 494, 977 N.Y.S.2d 217; cf. Amcan Holdings, Inc. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 70 A.D.3d 423, 426, 894 N.Y.S.2d 47 [1st Dept. 2010]).
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.
Docket No: 5054
Decided: October 28, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)