Livolsi v. Hicksville Union-Free School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Livolsi v. Hicksville Union-Free School District

263 A.D.2d 447, 693 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7729

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 447 (Livolsi v. Hicksville Union-Free 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

Livolsi v. Hicksville Union-Free School District, 263 A.D.2d 447, 693 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for alleged educational malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated April 30, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs appealed the plaintiff Michael Livolsi’s five-day suspension from high school to the New York State Commissioner of Education, who made a determination in the respondents’ favor. The plaintiffs never sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination pursuant to CPLR article 78, although they could have done so. Therefore, the plaintiffs are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata from relitigating the propriety of the suspension (see, e.g., Matter of Camperlengo v Bareli, 78 NY2d 674; Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 497).

Moreover, the plaintiffs’ cause of action sounding in “negligence” is clearly based upon alleged “educational malpractice”. As a matter of public policy, such a cause of action cannot be entertained by the courts of this State (see, Hoffman v Board of Educ., 49 NY2d 121, 125; Donohue v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 47 NY2d 440; Helbig v City of New York, 212 AD2d 506).

Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 alleged educational malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated April 30, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs appealed the plaintiff Michael Livolsi’s five-day suspension from high school to the New York State Commissioner of Education, who made a determination in the respondents’ favor. The plaintiffs never sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination pursuant to CPLR article 78, although they could have done so. Therefore, the plaintiffs are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata from relitigating the propriety of the suspension (see, e.g., Matter of Camperlengo v Bareli, 78 NY2d 674; Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 497).

Moreover, the plaintiffs’ cause of action sounding in “negligence” is clearly based upon alleged “educational malpractice”. As a matter of public policy, such a cause of action cannot be entertained by the courts of this State (see, Hoffman v Board of Educ., 49 NY2d 121, 125; Donohue v Copiague Union Free School Dist., 47 NY2d 440; Helbig v City of New York, 212 AD2d 506).

Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 447, 693 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livolsi-v-hicksville-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack