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.
Courtney CERNI, an Infant, by Her Parent and Natural Guardian, Connie C. CERNI, plaintiff-respondent, v. Melissa ZAMBRANA, defendant-respondent; Locust Valley Central School District, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Locust Valley Central School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated July 2, 1999, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, the complaint and all cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
A school is not an insurer of the safety of its students (see, Tarnaras v. Farmingdale School Dist., 264 A.D.2d 391, 694 N.Y.S.2d 413). The defendant Locust Valley Central School District (hereinafter the School District) did not owe a duty to the 16-year old plaintiff to prevent her from going home in a fellow student's car instead of embarking on a school bus (see, Wenger v. Goodell, 220 A.D.2d 937, 632 N.Y.S.2d 865). Moreover, the School District did not release the plaintiff into a “foreseeably hazardous setting” since it provided her with transportation after an early dismissal due to inclement weather (see, Ernest v. Red Creek Cent. School Dist., 93 N.Y.2d 664, 695 N.Y.S.2d 531, 717 N.E.2d 690; see also, Womack v. Duvernay, 229 A.D.2d 488, 645 N.Y.S.2d 831).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's cross motion to amend her bill of particulars to allege violations of various regulations. The cross motion was made approximately six months after a note of issue had been filed and three years after the accident (see, De Ordio v. Golembieski, 269 A.D.2d 861, 703 N.Y.S.2d 807). Moreover, the proposed amendment to the bill of particulars lacked merit (see, Nocerino v. State of New York, 229 A.D.2d 428, 644 N.Y.S.2d 909).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 17, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)