Diana Michelle G. v Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist.

Diana Michelle G. v Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist. 2013 NY Slip Op 01801 Decided on March 20, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 20, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
L. PRISCILLA HALL
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2011-11201
(Index No. 5438/07)

[*1]Diana Michelle G. (Anonymous), etc., appellant,

v

Bedford Central School District, et al., respondents (and third-party actions).




Finkelstein & Partners, Newburgh, N.Y. (Andrew L. Spitz of
counsel), for appellant.
O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson, Watson &
Loftus LLP (Congdon, Flaherty,
O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis &
Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. [Christine
Gasser], of counsel), for respondent Bedford
Central School District.
Henderson & Brennan, White Plains, N.Y. (John T. Brennan
and Lauren Demase of counsel), for
respondent Victoria Graboski.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Glenn A.
Kaminska and Nicholas M. Cardascia
of counsel), for respondent Kelly
Cieslinski-Schluter.


DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from the defendants' failure to report a case of suspected child abuse as required by Social Services Law § 413, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered October 21, 2011, as granted the motion of the defendant Bedford Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Victoria Graboski and Kelly Cieslinski-Schluter which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

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

The defendants submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they did not knowingly or willfully fail to report suspected child abuse (see Social Services Law § 420[2]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court