From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

SC v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2016
136 A.D.3d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

2014-02061 Index No. 401/13.

02-03-2016

SC, et al., appellants, v. MONROE WOODBURY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., respondents.

Law Office of Peter D. Hoffman, P.C., Katonah, N.Y. (Jamie Mattice of counsel), for appellants. Sokoloff Stern, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Adam I. Kleinberg of counsel), for respondents.


Law Office of Peter D. Hoffman, P.C., Katonah, N.Y. (Jamie Mattice of counsel), for appellants.

Sokoloff Stern, LLP, Carle Place, N.Y. (Adam I. Kleinberg of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated November 19, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), in effect, to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Allegations that a public school failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures to prevent bullying and harassment should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Commissioner of Education (see Education Law § 310; cf. Matter of North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 19 N.Y.3d 481, 495, 950 N.Y.S.2d 67, 973 N.E.2d 162). Thus, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court correctly determined that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies before commencing this action (see Education Law § 3107; Matter of Mirenberg v. Lynbrook Union Free School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 63 A.D.3d 943, 944, 881 N.Y.S.2d 159; see also Matter of R.B. v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 115 A.D.3d 440, 440–441, 981 N.Y.S.2d 413; Mulgrew v. Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 88 A.D.3d 72, 80, 928 N.Y.S.2d 269; Rubino v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 681, 681, 619 N.Y.S.2d 961). They also failed to establish the applicability of any exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine (see Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57, 412 N.Y.S.2d 821, 385 N.E.2d 560; Matter of Mirenberg v. Lynbrook Union Free School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 63 A.D.3d at 944, 881 N.Y.S.2d 159). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), in effect, to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

SC v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 3, 2016
136 A.D.3d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

SC v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:SC, et al., appellants, v. MONROE WOODBURY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 3, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 669
23 N.Y.S.3d 906

Citing Cases

Palmore v. Bd. of Educ. of Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist.

that the terminations of the probationary employment of the petitioners were based on "ineffective" ratings…

Eskenazi-McGibney v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist.

Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the negligence causes of action are not barred by the doctrine of…