SC v. Monroe Woodbury Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

SC v. Monroe Woodbury Central School District

136 A.D.3d 650, 23 N.Y.S.3d 906

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2016

Docket2014-02061

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 650 (SC v. Monroe Woodbury Central 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

SC v. Monroe Woodbury Central School District, 136 A.D.3d 650, 23 N.Y.S.3d 906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated November 19, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a), in effect, to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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

Allegations that a public school failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures to prevent bullying and *651 harassment should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Commissioner of Education (see Education Law § 310; cf. Matter of North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 19 NY3d 481, 495 [2012]). Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing this action (see Education Law § 310 [7]; Matter of Mirenberg v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 63 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; see also Matter of R.B. v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 115 AD3d 440, 440-441 [2014]; Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 88 AD3d 72, 80 [2011]; Rubino v City of New York, 209 AD2d 681, 681 [1994]). They also failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Matter of Mirenberg v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 63 AD3d at 944). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a), in effect, to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Barros, 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 negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated November 19, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a), in effect, to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

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

Allegations that a public school failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures to prevent bullying and *651 harassment should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Commissioner of Education (see Education Law § 310; cf. Matter of North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 19 NY3d 481, 495 [2012]). Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing this action (see Education Law § 310 [7]; Matter of Mirenberg v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 63 AD3d 943, 944 [2009]; see also Matter of R.B. v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 115 AD3d 440, 440-441 [2014]; Mulgrew v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 88 AD3d 72, 80 [2011]; Rubino v City of New York, 209 AD2d 681, 681 [1994]). They also failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine (see Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52, 57 [1978]; Matter of Mirenberg v Lynbrook Union Free School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 63 AD3d at 944). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a), in effect, to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 650, 23 N.Y.S.3d 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sc-v-monroe-woodbury-central-school-district-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack