Shante D. v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Shante D. v. City of New York

638 N.E.2d 962, 83 N.Y.2d 948, 615 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 1342

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 638 N.E.2d 962 (Shante D. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shante D. v. City of New York, 638 N.E.2d 962, 83 N.Y.2d 948, 615 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 1342 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

According to the trial testimony, on March 4, 1986, when plaintiff was a third-grade student in Community School 30 in Manhattan, she was sexually assaulted by two other girls in a school bathroom. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, finding that defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. The trial court set aside the jury’s verdict on defendants’ motion. The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court’s order, denied defendants’ motion, and reinstated the jury verdict. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it was not irrational for the jury to conclude that defendant’s failure to provide the requisite supervision was the legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see also, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44 [decided today]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.

According to the trial testimony, on March 4, 1986, when plaintiff was a third-grade student in Community School 30 in Manhattan, she was sexually assaulted by two other girls in a school bathroom. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor, finding that defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries. The trial court set aside the jury’s verdict on defendants’ motion. The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court’s order, denied defendants’ motion, and reinstated the jury verdict. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it was not irrational for the jury to conclude that defendant’s failure to provide the requisite supervision was the legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499; see also, Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44 [decided today]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

638 N.E.2d 962, 83 N.Y.2d 948, 615 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 1342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shante-d-v-city-of-new-york-ny-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack