| Brandy B. v Eden Cent. School Dist. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04509 [63 AD3d 1583] |
| June 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Brandy B., Individually and as Mother and Natural Guardian ofBrenna B., an Infant, Appellant, v Eden Central School District et al., Respondents, et al.,Defendant. (Appeal No. 1.) |
—[*1] Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Buffalo (Julie Pasquariello Apter of counsel), fordefendants-respondents Eden Central School District and Eden Central School District Board ofEducation. Damon & Morey LLP, Buffalo (Danielle M. Cardamone of counsel), fordefendant-respondent Erie County Child and Family Services.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered May6, 2008 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motions of defendants Eden CentralSchool District, Eden Central School District Board of Education and Erie County Child andFamily Services for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained byher daughter when she was sexually assaulted on a school bus. According to plaintiff, the fosterchild of third-party defendants foster parents (foster parents) committed the assault. In appealNo. 1, Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions of defendants/third-partyplaintiffs and defendant Erie County Child and Family Services for summary judgmentdismissing the amended complaint against them on the ground that they had no prior knowledgeof the assailant's sexual tendencies. With respect to the moving defendants, the court properlyconcluded that they established as a matter of law that they did not have sufficiently specificknowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct. Thus, the principle concerning liability for"foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" is inapplicablehere (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). Indeed, the records in thepossession of those defendants failed to indicate any relevant dangerous conduct at all, and theassailant had not been disciplined for any [*2]conduct of anykind during the year in which he was in the school district.
We also affirm the order in appeal No. 2 granting the motion (improperly denominated crossmotion) of the foster parents for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint againstthem, for reasons stated in the letter decision of Supreme Court dated May 6, 2008.Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.