Busby v. Ticonderoga Central School District

222 A.D.2d 882, 636 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 882 (Busby v. Ticonderoga Central School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Busby v. Ticonderoga Central School District, 222 A.D.2d 882, 636 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dawson, J.), entered March 27, 1995 in Essex County, which denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

This action stems from an altercation between two students of defendant Ticonderoga Central School District in which, according to plaintiffs complaint, Jeremy Busby was assaulted by Robert Fleury, Jr. as he was boarding a bus owned by de-. fendant Bridgewater Transport Company and used for transport of students. Plaintiff sued defendants for personal injuries sustained on behalf of Jeremy Busby. After interposing an answer, defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was denied by Supreme Court. This appeal by defendants ensued.

There should be an affirmance. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment is allowed considerable leeway in demonstrating an acceptable excuse for the failure to meet the strict pleading requirements of CPLR 3212 (see, River Bank Am. v Daniel Equities Corp., 213 AD2d 929). At the time defendants brought the motion, depositions had not yet been conducted of witnesses to the actual event and to Fleury’s aggressive behavior prior to the assault. Since this proof was necessary for plaintiff to establish his claim of negligent supervision (see, e.g., Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49), the motions were properly denied.

Cardona, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sloane v. Repsher
263 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Gellman v. Latimore
242 A.D.2d 920 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 882, 636 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/busby-v-ticonderoga-central-school-district-nyappdiv-1995.