Vizcarrondo v. Board of Education

17 A.D.3d 144, 792 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 7, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 144 (Vizcarrondo v. 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
Vizcarrondo v. Board of Education, 17 A.D.3d 144, 792 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[145]*145Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered February 6, 2004, which, in an action by an infant and her parent against the Board of Education and City of New York for personal injuries sustained in a kindergarten classroom assault by fellow students, denied plaintiffs’ motion to resolve against defendants the issue of whether they had notice of the alleged assailants’ assaultive propensities, on condition that defendants provide an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the reasons why they are unable to produce the assailants’ school records, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ failure to comply with prior court orders directing their production of the subject records for in camera inspection was properly excused on condition that they further explain why the assailants’ transfer out of their school system has rendered the records unavailable. Although defendants have been derelict, the drastic sanctions sought against them were properly withheld where they substantially complied with the vast bulk of plaintiffs’ discovery demands, and plausibly explained their initial noncompliance as the result of a mistaken belief that they were required to disclose only the assailants’ names and last known addresses (see Frye v City of New York, 228 AD2d 182 [1996]). We would add that other means of proving defendants’ notice of the assailants’ assaultive propensities appear to be available to plaintiffs. Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Sherman v. Zampella
2025 NY Slip Op 06397 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Luna v. Brodcom W. Dev. Co. LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 8382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Paz v. City of New York
38 A.D.3d 269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A.D.3d 144, 792 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vizcarrondo-v-board-of-education-nyappdiv-2005.