Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1971–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rutkowski v. Waskogreen2 sentences1994The doctrine of in loco parentis which requires that an individual intend to assume all the obligations of parenthood before he will be held to those obligations is absent here (see, People v Lilly, 71 AD2d 393, 394 , supra; see also, Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327 ). 1979This is an oversimplification of the in loco parentis doctrine, which requires that an individual intend to assume all the obligations of parenthood before he will be held to those obligations (Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327 ), and the jury’s fruitless request for clarification on that issue indicates this confusion. | 2 | 3 |
Wells v. Bard Collegegreen2 sentences2024While Syracuse is correct the doctrine of in loco parentis does not apply at the college level (see Wells v Bard College, 184 AD2d 304 [1st Dept 1992]), the existence of the duty owed to students engaged in educational programs is not so mechanistic as to hinge on whether they were assaulted one foot off campus or with one foot on campus (see, e.g. 2016Our holding that a duty of care exists in this case is not premised on the doctrine of in loco parentis. * Accordingly, to the extent Wells v Bard Coll. ( 184 AD2d 304 [1st Dept 1992]) and McNeil v Wagner Coll. ( 246 AD2d 516 [2d Dept 1998]) hold that in loco parentis does not apply at the college level, that holding is irrevelant to our analysis. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lillygreen2 sentences2011Thus, on these facts, the failure to provide any instruction to the jury on the in loco parentis doctrine was reversible error (see Jones v United States, 308 F2d 307, 310-311 [DC Cir 1962]; People v Lilly, 71 AD2d at 394 ). 8 Since the murder count was dismissed at trial for insufficient evidence and defendant was acquitted of the only other count in the indictment (for assault), the indictment must be dismissed, without prejudice (see People v McAdams, 22 AD3d 885, 886 [2005]). . 2011Most significantly, it must be observed that the in loco parentis standard, as articulated by the majority, would require not only that “defendant must have intended to assume all obligations incident to a parental relationship,” but also that defendant “actually discharged those [assumed] obligations.” In loco parentis is a civil concept that has been incorporated into criminal law, and the latter element has not heretofore been required to be proved separately in the criminal context (see People v Stephens, 3 AD3d 57, 61 [2003]; People v Goddard, 206 AD2d 653, 655 [1994]; People v Myers, 201 | 1 | 2 |
People v. Spadaccinigreen2 sentences2011Most significantly, it must be observed that the in loco parentis standard, as articulated by the majority, would require not only that “defendant must have intended to assume all obligations incident to a parental relationship,” but also that defendant “actually discharged those [assumed] obligations.” In loco parentis is a civil concept that has been incorporated into criminal law, and the latter element has not heretofore been required to be proved separately in the criminal context (see People v Stephens, 3 AD3d 57, 61 [2003]; People v Goddard, 206 AD2d 653, 655 [1994]; People v Myers, 201 2003Defendant correctly points out that since he was neither the child’s parent nor her legal guardian, he may only be convicted based upon a failure to take action to protect the child from harm if a legal duty may be imposed upon him under the in loco parentis doctrine: “Criminal liability cannot be premised on a failure to act . . . unless the party so charged has a legal duty to act (see, People v Spadaccini, 124 AD2d 859, 861 ). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Myersgreen2 sentences2011Defendant is correct that since he was neither the parent nor the legal guardian of Peter, his brother, he could only be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to seek medical care if a legal duty was imposed upon him under the doctrine of in loco parentis 2 (see People v Stephens, 3 AD3d 57, 61 [2003]; People v Goddard, 206 AD2d 653, 655 [1994]; People v Myers, 201 AD2d 855, 856 [1994]). 2011While many of the cases refer to this doctrine as applying to a person with “no familial relationship to a child” (People v Stephens, 3 AD3d at 61 ; see People v Myers, 201 AD2d at 856 ), the cases make clear that in the absence of a parental (or legal guardian) duty, a duty must exist under the in loco parentis doctrine as to any nonparent, whether related or unrelated (see e.g. | 1 | 2 |
Hoose v. S. S. Drummgreen1 sentence2026The application of this doctrine to schools originated in Hoose v Drumm ( 281 NY 54, 57-58 [1939]). | 1 | 1 |
Village of Savona v. Knight Settlement Sand & Gravel, Inc.green2 sentences2016However, "New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level" ( Wells v Bard Coll. , 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992] [citing Eiseman v State of New York , 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee , 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). 2016However, “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level (Wells v Bard Coll., 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992], citing Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee, 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Sirohi v. Leegreen2 sentences2016However, "New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level" ( Wells v Bard Coll. , 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992] [citing Eiseman v State of New York , 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee , 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). 2016However, “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level (Wells v Bard Coll., 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992], citing Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee, 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Eiseman v. Stategreen2 sentences2016However, "New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level" ( Wells v Bard Coll. , 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992] [citing Eiseman v State of New York , 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee , 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). 2016However, “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level (Wells v Bard Coll., 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992], citing Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee, 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). | 1 | 1 |
Hadden v. Kero-Sun, Inc.green2 sentences2011A nonparent to a child “ordinarily has no legal duty to provide for [the child], unless it can be shown that he or she has assumed all of the responsibilities incident to parenthood” (People v Stephens, 3 AD3d at 61 ; see People v Goddard, 206 AD2d at 655 ). 3 Under the seminal opinion issued in Rutkowski v Wasko ( 286 App Div 327, 331 [1955]), 4 this Court explained that “[i]n loco parentis refers to a person who has fully put himself [or herself] in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming all the obligations incident to the parental relationship and who actually discharges those obligat 2011Hadden v Kero-Sun, Inc., 197 AD2d 668, 668-669 [1993] [question of fact whether grandparents are acting in loco parentis to grandchild living in their home]; Rutkowski v Wasko, 286 App Div 327, 330-331 [1955] [question of fact whether stepfather acted in loco parentis to child who resided with him and mother]). . | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Bryantgreen2 sentences2011Defendant is correct that since he was neither the parent nor the legal guardian of Peter, his brother, he could only be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to seek medical care if a legal duty was imposed upon him under the doctrine of in loco parentis 2 (see People v Stephens, 3 AD3d 57, 61 [2003]; People v Goddard, 206 AD2d 653, 655 [1994]; People v Myers, 201 AD2d 855, 856 [1994]). 2011Most significantly, it must be observed that the in loco parentis standard, as articulated by the majority, would require not only that “defendant must have intended to assume all obligations incident to a parental relationship,” but also that defendant “actually discharged those [assumed] obligations.” In loco parentis is a civil concept that has been incorporated into criminal law, and the latter element has not heretofore been required to be proved separately in the criminal context (see People v Stephens, 3 AD3d 57, 61 [2003]; People v Goddard, 206 AD2d 653, 655 [1994]; People v Myers, 201 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stephensgreen2 sentences2011Defendant is correct that since he was neither the parent nor the legal guardian of Peter, his brother, he could only be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to seek medical care if a legal duty was imposed upon him under the doctrine of in loco parentis 2 (see People v Stephens, 3 AD3d 57, 61 [2003]; People v Goddard, 206 AD2d 653, 655 [1994]; People v Myers, 201 AD2d 855, 856 [1994]). 2011While many of the cases refer to this doctrine as applying to a person with “no familial relationship to a child” (People v Stephens, 3 AD3d at 61 ; see People v Myers, 201 AD2d at 856 ), the cases make clear that in the absence of a parental (or legal guardian) duty, a duty must exist under the in loco parentis doctrine as to any nonparent, whether related or unrelated (see e.g. | 1 | 1 |
People v. McAdamsgreen1 sentence2011Thus, on these facts, the failure to provide any instruction to the jury on the in loco parentis doctrine was reversible error (see Jones v United States, 308 F2d 307, 310-311 [DC Cir 1962]; People v Lilly, 71 AD2d at 394 ). 8 Since the murder count was dismissed at trial for insufficient evidence and defendant was acquitted of the only other count in the indictment (for assault), the indictment must be dismissed, without prejudice (see People v McAdams, 22 AD3d 885, 886 [2005]). . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dercolegreen1 sentence2011More over, “a reversal by the Appellate Division based on claimed trial error to which objection is not taken presents no question[ ] of law for appellate review” by the Court of Appeals (People v Dercole, 52 NY2d 956, 957 [1981]; see CPL 470.35 [2] [a]; 470.05 [2]). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Jamaica Hospitalgreen1 sentence2011A nonparent to a child “ordinarily has no legal duty to provide for [the child], unless it can be shown that he or she has assumed all of the responsibilities incident to parenthood” (People v Stephens, 3 AD3d at 61 ; see People v Goddard, 206 AD2d at 655 ). 3 Under the seminal opinion issued in Rutkowski v Wasko ( 286 App Div 327, 331 [1955]), 4 this Court explained that “[i]n loco parentis refers to a person who has fully put himself [or herself] in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming all the obligations incident to the parental relationship and who actually discharges those obligat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McNeil v. Wagner College
green
2 sentences2016Accordingly, to the extent Wells v Bard Coll. ( 184 AD2d 304 [1st Dept 1992]) and McNeil v Wagner Coll . ( 246 AD2d 516 [2nd Dept 1998]) hold that in loco parentis does not apply at the college level, that holding is irrelevant to our analysis. 2016Our holding that a duty of care exists in this case is not premised on the doctrine of in loco parentis. * Accordingly, to the extent Wells v Bard Coll. ( 184 AD2d 304 [1st Dept 1992]) and McNeil v Wagner Coll. ( 246 AD2d 516 [2d Dept 1998]) hold that in loco parentis does not apply at the college level, that holding is irrevelant to our analysis. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wells v. College
green
2 sentences2016However, "New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level" ( Wells v Bard Coll. , 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992] [citing Eiseman v State of New York , 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee , 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). 2016However, “New York has affirmatively rejected the doctrine of in loco parentis at the college level (Wells v Bard Coll., 184 AD2d 304, 304 [1st Dept 1992], citing Eiseman v State of New York, 70 NY2d 175, 190 [1987], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 80 NY2d 971 [1992]; see also Sirohi v Lee, 222 AD2d 222 [1st Dept 1995], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 88 NY2d 897 [1996]). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Carroll
green
1 sentence2011Unlike the in loco parentis doctrine requiring the assumption of all parental duties in order to impose a duty on a nonparent, “[a] person may act as the functional equivalent of a parent [and be charged with endangering the welfare of a child or abuse/neglect] even though that person assumes only temporary care or custody of the child” (People v Carroll, 93 NY2d at 569-570 ). . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Steinberg
green
1 sentence1994A babysitter undertaking responsibility for a helpless child does have an affirmative duty to provide adequate care (see, People v Wong, 81 NY2d 600, 607-608 ) and there are situations where the need to seek prompt medical attention would be obvious to the reasonable person (People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 681 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Wong
green
1 sentence1994A babysitter undertaking responsibility for a helpless child does have an affirmative duty to provide adequate care (see, People v Wong, 81 NY2d 600, 607-608 ) and there are situations where the need to seek prompt medical attention would be obvious to the reasonable person (People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 681 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Eiseman v. State
green
1 sentence1987While both lower courts soundly disavowed the imposition of liability on the basis of the doctrine of in loco parentis — concluding that colleges today in general have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students (see, 109 AD2d, at 52-53 ; see also, Reidhaar, The Assault on the Citadel: Reflections on a Quarter Century of Change in the Relationships Between the Student and the University, 12 J Coll & Univ L Rev 343) — the question before us today, in essence, is whether such a duty should nonetheless be recognized when a college admits an ex-felon such a | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Cowley v. . People of the State of New York
green
1 sentence1979If defendant is criminally liable for Vickie Area’s death, it must be because he assumed a duty of care to the exclusion of those persons legally responsible for her, there was reliance upon him to supply that care and he failed to do so (see Cowley v People, 83 NY 464 ; People v McDonald, 49 Hun 67 ; Jones v United States, 308 F2d 307; People v Beardsley, 150 Mich 206 ; and see Child Cruelty—One in "Custody”, "Control”, Ann. 75 ALR3d 933; Homicide by Withholding Necessities, Ann. 61 ALR3d 1207, 1224). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Beardsley
green
1 sentence1979If defendant is criminally liable for Vickie Area’s death, it must be because he assumed a duty of care to the exclusion of those persons legally responsible for her, there was reliance upon him to supply that care and he failed to do so (see Cowley v People, 83 NY 464 ; People v McDonald, 49 Hun 67 ; Jones v United States, 308 F2d 307; People v Beardsley, 150 Mich 206 ; and see Child Cruelty—One in "Custody”, "Control”, Ann. 75 ALR3d 933; Homicide by Withholding Necessities, Ann. 61 ALR3d 1207, 1224). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1974The courts have thus far limited the doctrine of in loco parentis, including the right to search a student upon reasonable suspicion, to the professional staff of the school, as in People v. Jackson (supra). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Overton v. New York
green
1 sentence1971On remand from the Supreme Court ( 393 U. S. 85 ), the Court of Appeals held, in effect, that the inspection of the locker, under attack, was not the result of “ legal coercion ” but was permissible conduct in conformity with the in loco parentis doctrine, conditioned only by reasonable suspicion. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.