At page 556 “new york has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level and colleges 'in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students”5 citing cases
- Brown v. Univ. of Rochester, 2023 NY Slip Op 02724 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2023).Supreme Court recognized as much and did not find that the University had a duty based on a student-to-student contact dynamic ( see Luina v Katharine Gibbs School NY, Inc. , 37 AD3d 555, 556 [2d Dept 2007]; Ellis v Mildred Elley Sch. , 24…
- Druger v. Syracuse Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 04463 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022).We reject that contention inasmuch as the allegations of the amended complaint provide a basis to find that SU had a duty to plaintiff ( see generally Luina v Katharine [*2]Gibbs School N.Y., Inc ., 37 AD3d 555, 556 [2d Dept 2007]; Ayeni v…
- Johnson v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00122 (N.D.N.Y. May 5, 2022).N.Y., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 555, 556 (Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2007) (citing Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 175 (1987)).
- Pasquaretto v. Long Island Univ., 106 A.D.3d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level and colleges ‘in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students’ ” (Luina v Katharine Gibbs Schoo…
- Shapiro v. Syracuse Univ., 2022 NY Slip Op 04835 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2022).We reject that contention inasmuch as the allegations of the amended complaint provide a basis to find that SU had a duty to Shapiro ( see Druger , — AD3d at &mdash, 2022 NY Slip Op 04463 at *1 ; see generally Luina v Katharine Gibbs Schoo…
830 N.Y.S.2d at 263 cited at this page4 citing cases
- Breitkopf v. Gentile, 41 F. Supp. 3d 220 (E.D.N.Y 2014).N.Y., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 555 , 830 N.Y.S.2d 263, 263 (2007); Talbot v. N.Y.
- Burke v. Quick Lift, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 370 (E.D.N.Y 2009).N.Y., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 555 , 830 N.Y.S.2d 263, 263 (2007); Talbot v. N.Y.
- Crews v. Cnty. of Nassau, 612 F. Supp. 2d 199 (E.D.N.Y 2009).See Van Nostrand v. Froehlich, 44 A.D.3d 54 , 844 N.Y.S.2d 293, 293 (2007); Luina v. Katharine Gibbs School N.Y., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 555 , 830 N.Y.S.2d 263, 263 (2007); Talbot v. N.Y.
- Adeyinka v. Yankee Fiber Control, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).See Van Nostrand v. Froehlich, 44 A.D.3d 54 , 844 N.Y.S.2d 293, 293 (N.Y.App.Div.2007); Luina v. Katharine Gibbs School N.Y., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 555 , 830 N.Y.S.2d 263, 263 (N.Y.App.Div.2007).
830 N.Y.S.2d at 264 cited at this page2 citing cases
- In Re: Sears Holdings Corp., No. 7:20-cv-03712 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2021).N.Y., Inc., 830 N.Y.S.2d 263, 264 (App. Div. 2007).
- Baker v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 232 F. Supp. 3d 233 (N.D.N.Y. 2017).N.Y., Inc., 37 A.D.3d 555 , 830 N.Y.S.2d 263, 264 (2007).
Other citing cases
- Doe v. Educ. Inst. Oholei Torah, 2025 NY Slip Op 00948 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2025).
v.
Katharine Gibbs School New York, Incorporated
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 21, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant Katharine Gibbs School New York,[*556] Incorporated, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, while attending the college operated by the defendant Katharine Gibbs School New York, Incorporated (hereinafter Gibbs), allegedly sustained injuries when a fellow student, the defendant Louis Brown, punched him in the face during an altercation in their classroom before the start of the class.
To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages. The existence of a legal duty presents a question of law for the court (see Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175 [1987]; Talbot v New York Inst. of Tech., 225 AD2d 611 [1996]).
New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level and colleges “in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students” (Eiseman v State of New York, supra at 190; see Rydzynski v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 262 AD2d 630 [1999]; Ellis v Mildred Elley School, 245 AD2d 994, 995 [1997]; Talbot v New York Inst. of Tech., 225 AD2d at 612-613). However, under appropriate circumstances, a college may be held liable for injuries sustained by a student while on campus (cf. Ayeni v County of Nassau, 18 AD3d 409, 410 [2005]; Ellis v Mildred Elley School, 245 AD2d at 996; Adams v State of New York, 210 AD2d 273, 274 [1994]). Here, as a property owner/occupier, Gibbs had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the plaintiff from reasonably foreseeable criminal or dangerous acts committed by third persons on its premises (see Ayeni v County of Nassau, supra; Ellis v Mildred Elley School, supra; Adams v State of New York, supra).
Gibbs established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering evidence that it did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff and the single punch by fellow classmate Brown was a sudden, unexpected, and unforeseeable act (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; Ayeni v County of Nassau, supra; Janukajtis v Fallon, 284 AD2d 428 [2001]; Ellis v Mildred Elley School, supra, 245 AD2d at 997). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Diane F. v State of New York, 29 AD3d 732 [2006]; Adams v State of New York, 210 AD2d 273, 274 [1994]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as as[*557] serted against Gibbs. Spolzino, J.E, Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.