Rollins v. New York City Board of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rollins v. New York City Board of Education

68 A.D.3d 540, 889 N.Y.2d 456

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 540 (Rollins v. New York City 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

Rollins v. New York City Board of Education, 68 A.D.3d 540, 889 N.Y.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

[541]*541Plaintiff, a school safety officer, had to show a special relationship in order to state a claim for negligent failure to protect her from injury caused by a student (see Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d 872 [2009]; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 261 [1987]). Since she raised neither that legal theory nor the factual predicate — an alleged oral promise and policy with the special education dean — in her notice of claim or her complaint, she could not assert that theory or the facts underlying it for the first time in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see Brown v New York City Tr. Auth., 172 AD2d 178, 180-181 [1991]). Furthermore, plaintiffs affidavit in opposition was fundamentally and irreconcilably inconsistent with her deposition testimony (see Fernandez v VLA Realty, LLC, 45 AD3d 391 [2007]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

[541]*541Plaintiff, a school safety officer, had to show a special relationship in order to state a claim for negligent failure to protect her from injury caused by a student (see Dinardo v City of New York, 13 NY3d 872 [2009]; Cuffy v City of New York, 69 NY2d 255, 261 [1987]). Since she raised neither that legal theory nor the factual predicate — an alleged oral promise and policy with the special education dean — in her notice of claim or her complaint, she could not assert that theory or the facts underlying it for the first time in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see Brown v New York City Tr. Auth., 172 AD2d 178, 180-181 [1991]). Furthermore, plaintiffs affidavit in opposition was fundamentally and irreconcilably inconsistent with her deposition testimony (see Fernandez v VLA Realty, LLC, 45 AD3d 391 [2007]). Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 540, 889 N.Y.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollins-v-new-york-city-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack