Thomas v Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Foster care negligence and child-protection reporting liability, including whether a foster care agency had actual or constructive notice of a foster household member's abusive propensities and whether it failed to report suspected abuse under Social Services Law § 413 [mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse] and Social Services Law § 420(2) [civil liability for knowing or willful failure to report].
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied Little Flower's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
The Appellate Division modified the order by granting summary judgment to Little Flower only on Shamel Thomas's negligence claim, while otherwise affirming the denial of summary judgment on Gordon Davis's negligence claim and on the Social Services Law claims.
Little Flower made a prima facie showing that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the foster mother's son's propensity to abuse Thomas, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on that point. But Little Flower failed to make the same prima facie showing as to Davis, and it also failed to show that it did not knowingly or willfully fail to report suspected abuse.
Background
Shamel Thomas and Gordon Davis brought this action under CPLR 214-g [Child Victims Act revival provision], alleging that while they were foster children in the legal custody of Little Flower, the agency placed them in a foster home where they were sexually abused by the foster mother's biological son. The amended complaint alleged negligent placement, negligent supervision, and failure to report abuse.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied Little Flower's November 2024 motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order to grant summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action only insofar as asserted by Thomas against Little Flower. It otherwise affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly denied as to Davis's negligence claim and as to the claims based on alleged violations of the Social Services Law.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in foster care negligence cases, a defendant seeking summary judgment must establish as a matter of law that it lacked sufficiently specific notice of the dangerous conduct that caused the plaintiff's injuries. The ruling also shows that a movant's failure to negate a statutory child-abuse reporting claim under Social Services Law §§ 413 and 420(2) requires denial of summary judgment regardless of the opposing papers' sufficiency.
A foster care agency may defeat a negligence claim for one plaintiff by showing no notice of an abuser's propensity as to that plaintiff, but if the record does not eliminate factual issues about notice or failure to report suspected abuse as to another plaintiff, those claims survive summary judgment.