Charles v. City of New York

272 A.D.2d 287, 707 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 1, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 287 (Charles v. City of New York) 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
Charles v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 287, 707 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants City of New York and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, and the defendant St. Christopher-Ottilie, separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated April 28, 1999, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent placement, supervision, and training of the defendant foster parent insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, those branches of the respective motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for negligent placement, supervision, and training of the defendant foster parent insofar as asserted against them are granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the defendant foster parent is severed.

A foster care agency cannot be held liable for injuries which result to a foster child due to the momentary inattention of a foster parent, where, as here, the actions of the foster parent “were not acts that should have been foreseeable by the [agency] in the exercise of reasonable care” (Parker v St. Christopher’s Horde, 77 AD2d 921; cf., Bartels v County of Westchester, 76 AD2d 517). Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Albino v. New York City Housing Authority
78 A.D.3d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
McCabe v. Dutchess County
72 A.D.3d 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 287, 707 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2000.