DeMunda v. Niagara Wheatfield Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeMunda v. Niagara Wheatfield Board of Education

213 A.D.2d 975, 625 N.Y.S.2d 764

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 975 (DeMunda v. Niagara Wheatfield Board of Education) 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

DeMunda v. Niagara Wheatfield Board of Education, 213 A.D.2d 975, 625 N.Y.S.2d 764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order that granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff sought damages for injuries his daughter received when a fellow student struck her face during a brief fight while students were boarding a bus at her school.

The fight between plaintiff’s daughter and the student was a brief, spontaneous occurrence; there was no opportunity for defendant’s bus driver to intervene on the daughter’s behalf (see, Hanley v Hornbeck, 127 AD2d 905, 906-907; cf., Mirand v [976]*976City of New York, 190 AD2d 282, affd 84 NY2d 44; Blair v Board of Educ., 86 AD2d 933). Although the school district had previously disciplined that student for fighting on the bus, those incidents had occurred over four months prior to this incident. Plaintiffs daughter had never reported any difficulties with the student, nor is there any indication in the record that the two had previously been involved in a fight (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra; James v Gloversville Enlarged School Dist. 155 AD2d 811, 813; see also, Hanley v Hornbeck, supra, at 907). Plaintiff has not identified any rules, procedures or security plans of the school district that were violated by the bus driver (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra, at 289-291; James v Gloversville Enlarged School Dist., supra, at 813; Lauricella v Board of Educ., 52 AD2d 710, 711). Furthermore, "[t]he courts of this State have consistently held that liability for injury caused by a fight cannot be predicated upon supervisory negligence if the plaintiff voluntarily entered into the fight [citations omitted]” (Borelli v Board of Educ., 156 AD2d 903, 904). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Bohem, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order that granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff sought damages for injuries his daughter received when a fellow student struck her face during a brief fight while students were boarding a bus at her school.

The fight between plaintiff’s daughter and the student was a brief, spontaneous occurrence; there was no opportunity for defendant’s bus driver to intervene on the daughter’s behalf (see, Hanley v Hornbeck, 127 AD2d 905, 906-907; cf., Mirand v [976]*976City of New York, 190 AD2d 282, affd 84 NY2d 44; Blair v Board of Educ., 86 AD2d 933). Although the school district had previously disciplined that student for fighting on the bus, those incidents had occurred over four months prior to this incident. Plaintiffs daughter had never reported any difficulties with the student, nor is there any indication in the record that the two had previously been involved in a fight (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra; James v Gloversville Enlarged School Dist. 155 AD2d 811, 813; see also, Hanley v Hornbeck, supra, at 907). Plaintiff has not identified any rules, procedures or security plans of the school district that were violated by the bus driver (see, Mirand v City of New York, supra, at 289-291; James v Gloversville Enlarged School Dist., supra, at 813; Lauricella v Board of Educ., 52 AD2d 710, 711). Furthermore, "[t]he courts of this State have consistently held that liability for injury caused by a fight cannot be predicated upon supervisory negligence if the plaintiff voluntarily entered into the fight [citations omitted]” (Borelli v Board of Educ., 156 AD2d 903, 904). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Bohem, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 975, 625 N.Y.S.2d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demunda-v-niagara-wheatfield-board-of-education-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack