Harrell v. County of Nassau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harrell v. County of Nassau

275 A.D.2d 440, 712 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8909

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

DecidedAugust 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 440 (Harrell v. County of Nassau) 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

Harrell v. County of Nassau, 275 A.D.2d 440, 712 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent supervision, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated June 1, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant Loretta Walton for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ cause of action against the respondent, Loretta Walton, was based on her alleged negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff, who was sexually assaulted by Walton’s 14-year-old son, while in her home for day care. The court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. In opposition to the respondent’s motion establishing prima facie her entitlement to that relief, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact that the respondent had actual or constructive notice that the presence of the defendant Jose Walton posed a danger to the child (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49; Gattyan v Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 152 AD2d 650, 651). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligent supervision, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Connell, J.), dated June 1, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant Loretta Walton for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs’ cause of action against the respondent, Loretta Walton, was based on her alleged negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff, who was sexually assaulted by Walton’s 14-year-old son, while in her home for day care. The court properly granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. In opposition to the respondent’s motion establishing prima facie her entitlement to that relief, the plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact that the respondent had actual or constructive notice that the presence of the defendant Jose Walton posed a danger to the child (see, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49; Gattyan v Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 152 AD2d 650, 651). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 440, 712 N.Y.S.2d 896, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-county-of-nassau-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack