Conklin v Westchester County
Judges
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Foster care negligence liability, specifically whether a county can be held liable for negligent placement and supervision of a foster child allegedly sexually abused at a residential facility.
The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted Westchester County summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it.
The Appellate Division reversed the order insofar as appealed from and denied the County's motion for summary judgment.
The County failed to make a prima facie showing that it lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct or that the abuse could not reasonably have been anticipated. Its own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to constructive notice and whether it adequately selected and supervised the plaintiff's placement.
Background
The plaintiff brought a negligence action under CPLR 214-g [Child Victims Act revival provision allowing certain civil claims based on child sexual abuse] after alleging that, while he was a foster child in Westchester County's legal custody, the County placed him in a residential facility where a staff member sexually abused him. He alleged that the County knew or should have known the facility was unsafe and failed to properly supervise him. Westchester County moved for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted the County's motion for summary judgment insofar as the amended complaint was asserted against the County, effectively dismissing the negligence claims against it.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that a defendant seeking dismissal of a negligent placement and supervision claim involving a foster child must affirmatively show that it lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct and that the third-party acts were not reasonably foreseeable. The County did not satisfy that burden. Instead, its own submissions created triable issues of fact regarding constructive notice of the alleged conduct and whether it failed to adequately select or supervise the placement. Because the County failed to meet its initial burden, the motion should have been denied regardless of the adequacy of the plaintiff's opposition.
Legal Significance
This decision reinforces that, in foster care negligence cases, a governmental defendant moving for summary judgment must affirmatively negate notice and foreseeability; it cannot simply point to gaps in the plaintiff's proof. If the defendant's own evidence raises factual issues about constructive notice or inadequate placement supervision, summary judgment is improper.
A county accused of negligent foster care placement and supervision cannot obtain summary judgment unless it affirmatively proves the abuse was not reasonably foreseeable and that it lacked notice of the risk. If its own evidence suggests possible constructive notice or inadequate oversight, the case must proceed.