Introduction

In Harper v. Buffalo City School District, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously reversed a trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment dismissing four negligence-based causes of action brought under New York’s Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g). The plaintiff, Thaddeus Harper, alleged that when he was a seventh or eighth grader in approximately 1975–1976, he was sexually abused by a nonparty music teacher employed by the Buffalo City School District and the Buffalo Board of Education.

The appellate court reinstated claims sounding in negligent supervision of the student (in loco parentis), negligent hiring, negligent supervision and training of the teacher (and training of other employees), and negligent retention. The decision provides significant guidance on two recurrent fault lines in school-abuse litigation:

• What constitutes “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice” to put a school on notice of risk under the Mirand negligent-supervision standard, including the role of rumors, staff suspicions, and staff-observed boundary violations.
• How “red flag” materials in an employee’s hiring file—such as inconsistent arrest disclosures and negative references referencing student-boundary concerns—bear on an employer’s initial summary judgment burden in negligent hiring and retention claims.

The case arises in the continued wave of revived claims made possible by the Child Victims Act, but its reasoning is not limited to CVA matters; it carries broader implications for school district liability, evidentiary showings on summary judgment, and the imputation of staff knowledge to the institution.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Department reversed Supreme Court, Erie County’s order (Furlong, J.) that had dismissed four negligence-based causes of action on summary judgment:

• Second cause: negligent supervision of the plaintiff-student while the school was acting in loco parentis.
• Fourth cause: negligent hiring of the music teacher.
• Fifth cause: negligent supervision and training of the music teacher and negligent training of other employees.
• Sixth cause: negligent retention of the music teacher.

As to negligent supervision and training (second and fifth causes), the court held that—even assuming defendants met their initial burden—plaintiff raised triable issues of fact that the school had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the teacher’s inappropriate conduct and failed to act with the care of a reasonably prudent parent. Critical facts included:

• Affidavit evidence that the music teacher entered the boys’ locker room during changing, and the gym teacher twice directed him to leave.
• A separate sworn affidavit (from an unrelated case) by the gym teacher stating he had heard “rumors from many students” that the music teacher had a sexual interest in male students, was suspicious of inappropriate relationships, and kept the teacher under vigilant watch—including weekly check-ins with another coach—while still allowing the teacher to transport students to games and meets.
• The music teacher’s testimony that students had “always” visited him at his home, that other teachers knew it, and that some of the alleged abuse occurred in that home setting.
• An expert affidavit opining that the district failed to adequately train and supervise staff to report and respond to boundary violations; the court held defense critiques of the expert went to weight, not admissibility.

As to negligent hiring and retention (fourth and sixth causes), the court held defendants failed to meet their initial burden because their own submissions showed unresolved “red flags” that, if taken as true, undermined any showing of reasonable care in the hiring and retention process:

• Contradictory answers in the teacher’s applications regarding arrest history.
• References indicating the teacher had been “dismissed or denied tenure,” had a tendency to “pal with his seventh grade male students,” and a reference-giver who would not hire him.
• HR testimony that inconsistent arrest answers or having been asked to leave a prior school would trigger additional background checks—both in the 1970s and today.

Because defendants’ own proof revealed these red flags, summary judgment on negligent hiring and retention was properly denied “without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposing papers.”

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Mirand v. City of New York, 84 NY2d 44 (1994): The Court of Appeals established that a plaintiff can prevail on negligent supervision by showing school authorities had “sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury.” Harper directly quotes and applies this standard, finding triable issues from staff rumors, observed boundary intrusions (locker room entries), and awareness of private home visits.
• Brandy B. v. Eden Cent. School Dist., 15 NY3d 297 (2010): Reaffirms the duty of schools to supervise students and address foreseeable risks. Harper leans on this general duty frame while emphasizing that foreseeability can arise from patterns of rumor, suspicion, and boundary concerns.
• Kaul v. Brooklyn Friends Sch., 220 AD3d 936 (2d Dept 2023): Emphasizes that schools owe a duty to adequately supervise and that foreseeability and proximate cause issues often are jury questions. Harper cites Kaul for the duty formulation and, together with Mirand, uses it to send negligent supervision claims to a jury.
• BL Doe 5 v. Fleming, 229 AD3d 1076 (4th Dept 2024): Clarifies that knowledge acquired by an employee within the scope of employment is imputed to the employer, even if not relayed up the chain. Harper deploys this imputation rule to treat a gym teacher’s rumors, suspicions, and monitoring efforts as knowledge attributable to the school.
• BL Doe 3 v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart, 199 AD3d 1419 (4th Dept 2021), and David v. County of Suffolk, 1 NY3d 525 (2003): Both underscore the in loco parentis standard—schools must exercise the care of a reasonably prudent parent in comparable circumstances. Harper uses this parent-of-ordinary-prudence standard to assess the school’s response to repeated rumors and observed boundary concerns.
• T.F. v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 238 AD3d 988 (2d Dept 2025): Reaffirms that adequacy of supervision and proximate cause are typically jury issues. Harper mirrors that approach, rejecting summary disposition on supervision-related claims.
• Jacobson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824 (2014): Establishes that on summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Harper applies this to credit plaintiff’s evidence and sworn materials that contradict defense narratives.
• Shapiro v. Syracuse Univ., 208 AD3d 958 (4th Dept 2022): Articulates the rule for negligent hiring and retention: employer liability turns on whether the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the injurious conduct and failed to exercise reasonable care. Harper relies on Shapiro to hold that the presence of hiring-file red flags defeats the employer’s initial summary judgment burden.
• Revere v. Burke, 200 AD3d 1607 (4th Dept 2021); Chillis v. Brundin, 150 AD3d 1649 (4th Dept 2017); Latour v. Hayner Hoyt Corp., 13 AD3d 1147 (4th Dept 2004): These cases support the proposition that disputes over an expert’s qualifications typically go to the weight of the opinion, not admissibility, at the summary judgment stage. Harper uses this to retain plaintiff’s expert affidavit on training and reporting failures.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning operates across two intertwined negligence tracks—supervision/training and hiring/retention—under standard New York summary judgment principles.

• Negligent supervision and training:
  • The court begins with Mirand’s “specific knowledge or notice” requirement and the in loco parentis duty to exercise the care of a prudent parent.
  • Applying those standards, the court treats multiple strands of evidence as creating triable issues: staff-observed boundary intrusions (locker room entries), widespread student rumors noted by a gym teacher, that teacher’s expressed suspicions and active monitoring, the continued decision to let the music teacher transport students, and knowledge that students visited the teacher’s home (where some abuse allegedly occurred).
  • Crucially, under BL Doe 5’s imputation rule, the gym teacher’s knowledge and suspicion are attributable to the school, even if not formally reported upwards. This tightens the focus on what front-line staff knew and did.
  • The court reiterates that the adequacy of supervision and whether any deficiencies proximately caused harm are quintessential jury questions, especially where the record contains contradictions (e.g., the gym teacher’s deposition denial versus his earlier sworn affidavit).
  • The court accepts plaintiff’s expert affidavit critiquing training/reporting practices; defense attacks on credentials go to weight, not admissibility. That keeps negligent training theories alive for trial.
• Negligent hiring and retention:
  • Under Shapiro, the focal inquiry is whether the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the injurious conduct and exercised reasonable care in hiring/retention decisions.
  • Here, defendants’ own submissions revealed unresolved red flags in the teacher’s file: inconsistent arrest disclosures, references noting dismissal/denial of tenure, and remarks about “palling” with seventh grade male students, plus a reference who would not hire him at all.
  • HR testimony that such red flags would trigger further vetting both in the 1970s and today undermined any assertion that reasonable care was taken.
  • Because the moving party’s proof failed to establish reasonable care as a matter of law, the court denied summary judgment on hiring and retention “without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s opposing papers.” This underscores a vital procedural point: when a movant’s own proof reveals triable issues, the motion fails at step one.

Impact and Forward-Looking Implications

• Imputed notice from front-line staff: Harper solidifies that staff-level awareness—rumors, suspicions, and boundary observations—can be imputed to the district and suffice to defeat summary judgment on negligent supervision/training. Institutions cannot evade notice by claiming rumors never reached the central office if they were known to employees acting within the scope of employment.
• The evidentiary value of “rumors” when tied to concrete boundary concerns: While rumors alone are often criticized as too general, Harper illustrates that rumors combined with observed boundary violations (locker room intrusions, private transportation, home visits known to other teachers) can satisfy Mirand’s “sufficiently specific knowledge” standard at the summary judgment stage.
• Hiring-file red flags matter—decisively: Inconsistent arrest disclosures, negative references, prior dismissal/denial of tenure, and references to inappropriate student “palling” can defeat an employer’s initial summary judgment burden on negligent hiring or retention. HR testimony about expected follow-up—especially when it purports to reflect practices “then and now”—may be particularly potent.
• Expert challenges will rarely carry a summary judgment motion: Defendants frequently attack CVA experts as unqualified or their opinions as generic. Harper reinforces that such attacks usually go to weight, not admissibility, and will not strip an otherwise competent expert affidavit from the record at the summary judgment stage.
• Juries as the arbiters of adequacy and causation: Harper emphasizes a longstanding theme—adequacy of supervision and proximate cause in school-violence and school-abuse cases are fact-intensive and typically reserved for juries where the record shows conflicting testimony and credibility issues.
• CVA-era and beyond: Although anchored in a CVA revival claim, the reasoning transcends the CVA context. Any case alleging school negligence in the face of staff-level suspicions or hiring-file red flags will likely cite Harper to resist summary judgment.
• Practical compliance signal to schools: The decision nudges districts to (1) document and escalate staff concerns; (2) train staff to report boundary crossings; (3) ban high-risk scenarios (unsupervised transportation, home visits) absent robust controls; and (4) rigorously follow up on hiring/retention red flags contemporaneously.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Child Victims Act (CPLR 214-g): A law that revived previously time-barred civil claims for child sexual abuse for a defined window, allowing survivors to bring suits decades after the abuse. It affects timeliness, not the substantive negligence standards courts apply.
• Summary judgment: A procedural device to resolve claims without a trial when there are no genuine disputes of material fact. The moving party bears the initial burden to show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
• In loco parentis: The doctrine that schools, while students are in their custody, must exercise the care a reasonably prudent parent would in similar circumstances.
• Imputed knowledge: Information learned by an employee acting within the scope of employment is legally attributed to the employer, even if not formally reported.
• Negligent supervision (student): Claims that a school failed to adequately supervise a student, thereby allowing foreseeable harm. Requires showing the school had sufficiently specific notice of the risk and that inadequate supervision proximately caused the injury.
• Negligent hiring/retention: Claims that the employer knew or should have known of a worker’s propensity for harmful conduct and failed to act with reasonable care in hiring or keeping the worker.
• Negligent training/supervision (employee): Claims that the employer failed to train or supervise staff adequately to identify, report, and respond to risks (e.g., boundary violations), contributing to the harm.
• Triable issue of fact: A factual dispute that a jury—not a judge—must resolve, often arising when witnesses give conflicting sworn accounts or records reveal inconsistencies.
• Propensity: A tendency or inclination toward a particular type of conduct; in negligent hiring/retention, the inquiry is whether the employer knew or should have known of an employee’s propensity for the type of conduct that caused the injury.

Practical Notes for Litigants

• Discovery targets for plaintiffs: personnel files (applications, references, disciplinary history), HR policies (historic and current), staff training materials, and testimony from front-line staff regarding rumors, observations, and monitoring. Prior sworn statements from staff—even from unrelated cases—can be powerful, particularly when they contradict deposition testimony.
• Defense motion practice: Before moving for summary judgment on negligent hiring/retention, scrutinize whether your own submissions reveal unresolved red flags. If they do, the motion likely fails at step one.
• Expert practice: Ensure the expert opinion connects training/supervision failures to recognized duties and to the facts in the record. Expect that attacks on credentials go to weight, not admissibility, at the summary judgment stage.
• Policy compliance: Document how rumored or observed boundary issues are escalated and addressed. Where staff allow higher-risk interactions (e.g., private transportation), record the safeguards and supervisory rationale.

Conclusion

Harper v. Buffalo City School District meaningfully advances New York law’s practical application to school-abuse negligence claims. It clarifies that:

• Staff-level rumors and suspicions—when coupled with concrete boundary concerns—can constitute “sufficiently specific” notice under Mirand, especially where employees observe rule-breaking (locker room entries) and risky interactions (private transportation, home visits) known within the school community.
• Such staff knowledge is imputable to the school, thereby defeating defenses premised on lack of formal reporting.
• Hiring and retention claims withstand summary judgment when the employer’s own materials reveal unresolved red flags—contradictory arrest disclosures, negative references, and indications of inappropriate boundary tendencies—without evidence of reasonable follow-up.
• Challenges to an abuse-prevention expert’s qualifications typically go to weight rather than admissibility at the summary judgment stage.

Collectively, these holdings reinforce that school districts face a demanding but long-settled duty to act as a prudent parent would when confronted with warning signs. For CVA-era cases and beyond, Harper will be a cornerstone citation on imputed notice, the sufficiency of “rumor-plus” evidence, and the dispositive role of red flags in hiring and retention litigation. The decision does not adjudicate ultimate liability; it ensures that, where competing narratives and credibility questions abound, a jury will hear them.

Case Data

• Case: Harper v. Buffalo City School District (also known as Buffalo School District and/or Buffalo Public Schools) and Buffalo Board of Education
• Citation: 2025 NY Slip Op 05595
• Court: Appellate Division, Fourth Department (N.Y.)
• Date: October 10, 2025
• Panel: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Smith, Nowak, and DelConte, JJ.
• Disposition: Order reversed insofar as appealed from; motion denied in part; second, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action reinstated.