Duty of Universities to Enforce Threat Assessment Policies and Protect Targeted Students

Introduction

Cuomo v. State of New York (2025 NYSlipOp 01991) arises from a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Christopher R. Cuomo, administrator of the estate of Joao Souza, against the State of New York. Souza was fatally stabbed by fellow student Michael Roque in a campus dormitory at Binghamton University. Plaintiff alleged two theories: (1) general landlord-security negligence; and (2) a failure to protect Souza from Roque’s known, targeted threats, communicated during counseling sessions. The Court of Claims granted the State’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding as a matter of law that the University owed no duty to protect one student from another. On appeal, the Third Department reversed, recognizing a duty when (a) threats are known to campus mental‐health counselors, and (b) the institution has threat‐assessment policies in place.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division held:

The University’s threat-assessment and referral protocols create a legally cognizable duty of care toward a specifically threatened student when counselors learn of credible, targeted threats.
Where mental-health services constitute a proprietary function, the State is held to the same standard of care as private institutions providing similar services.
Material factual disputes remain about (i) the scope and content of the University’s policies, (ii) whether those policies were triggered by Roque’s statements, and (iii) whether any breach proximately caused Souza’s death, requiring further discovery.
The cross-motion for partial summary judgment was therefore improper and must be denied; the motion to compel discovery should be granted.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. (248 NY 339 [1928]) – Establishes the general negligence framework: duty, breach, proximate cause, and injury.
Eiseman v. State of New York (70 NY2d 175 [1987]) – Rejects in loco parentis at the college level and holds universities owe no broad duty to shield students from each other under general campus‐security theories.
Schrempf v. State of New York (66 NY2d 289 [1985]) – Distinguishes proprietary functions (mental‐health counseling) from governmental functions, imposing private‐sector standards on proprietary activities.
Brown v. University of Rochester (216 AD3d 1328 [3d Dept 2023]) – Imposes a duty where a university has actual knowledge of pervasive or targeted criminal conduct by one student against others on campus.
McEnaney v. State of New York (267 AD2d 748 [3d Dept 1999]) – Limits duty regarding general campus security in the absence of a special relationship to the plaintiff and in the context of governmental functions.
Davis v. South Nassau Communities Hospital (26 NY3d 563 [2015]) and Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp. (96 NY2d 222 [2001]) – Support the rule that mental‐health providers may owe third‐party duties when they know of a patient’s credible threat to others.

Legal Reasoning

1. Duty as a Question of Law. The court reiterates that duty issues are legal questions to be decided before trial.

2. Proprietary vs. Governmental Functions. Mental‐health counseling is treated as a proprietary function under New York law (Schrempf). When a State entity performs proprietary services, it is held to the same standard of care as private actors in comparable roles.

3. Eiseman Distinction. Eiseman bars a generalized duty to protect all students from each other. Here, by contrast, counselors learned of specific threats against Souza. The student‐to‐student relationship was not a faceless risk but an identifiable danger to a particular individual.

4. Actual Knowledge and Special Relationship. Under Davis and Hamilton, when a mental‐health provider knows of a credible threat, a special relationship arises: the provider is best positioned to prevent the harm. Thus, when University counselors heard Roque’s hostile statements, they were required to trigger the campus threat‐assessment protocol.

5. Factual Issues and Discovery. The scope, applicability, and implementation of the Threat Assessment Policy remain disputed. Whether counselor confidentiality rules or referral guidelines applied, and whether any breach causally contributed to Souza’s death, are questions for further fact-finding.

Impact

This decision signals that public universities cannot immunize themselves from negligence simply by labeling campus counseling a governmental function. Institutions with internal threat‐assessment protocols must heed known, targeted threats voiced by students. Future cases will likely explore:

How detailed and accessible threat‐assessment policies must be;
The interplay of confidentiality obligations with mandatory reporting exceptions;
The boundaries of a university’s duty when threats are less precise or communicated informally;
Liability for other proprietary student services (e.g., health centers, campus security).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duty of Care: A legal obligation to conform to a standard of reasonable care to prevent harm.
Proprietary Function: Activities that a State performs but could be provided by private entities. They are judged by private‐sector standards.
In Loco Parentis: An outdated doctrine treating universities as stand-in parents; Eiseman rejects this for student-on-student violence.
Threat Assessment Policy: Internal university procedures to identify and respond to students who may pose a danger to themselves or others.
Special Relationship: A relationship creating affirmative duties—here, between counselor and third‐party student upon learning of a credible threat.

Conclusion

Cuomo v. State of New York establishes that when a university’s mental‐health counselors become aware of credible, targeted threats against a particular student, the institution owes that student a duty of care measured by its own threat-assessment protocols. This duty arises from the proprietary nature of counseling services and the special relationship created by actual knowledge of danger. Courts will now require public colleges to turn over internal policies and training materials to determine whether threats should have been referred and addressed. The ruling underscores the importance of transparent, well-defined threat-assessment procedures and highlights the legal risks universities face when those procedures are not followed.