Majority
Even assuming that defendant owed a duty of adequate care to plaintiff for an assault that occurred on a school bus it neither owned nor operated (see Ernest v Red Cr. Cent. School Dist., 93 NY2d 664 , 671 [1999]; David XX. v Saint Catherine’s Ctr. for Children, 267 AD2d 813 , 815 [3d Dept 1999]), there were no issues of fact as to whether “school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44 , 49 [1994]). There was no evidence in the record to suggest that defendant had prior knowledge of any propensity or inclination of violence on the part of plaintiff’s assailant demonstrating that the assault could have been anticipated or was foreseeable (see Hallock v Riverhead Cent. School Dist., 53 AD3d 527 [2d Dept 2008]; Dia CC. v Ithaca City School Dist., 304 AD2d 955 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; Shante D. v City of New York, 190 AD2d 356 , 362 [1st Dept 1993], affd 83 NY2d 948 [1994]).
Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.
Cases cited
- Ernest v. Red Creek Central School District 93 NY2d 664 at 671 p. 642
- David XX. v. Saint Catherine's Center for Children 267 AD2d 813 at 815 p. 642
- Mirand v. City of New York 84 NY2d 44 at 49 p. 642
- Dia CC. v. Ithaca City School District 304 AD2d 955 p. 642
- Shante D. v. City of New York 190 AD2d 356 at 362 p. 642
- Shante D. v. City of New York 83 NY2d 948 p. 642