DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.
Contrary to the plaintiff's assertions, there was insufficient evidence in the record to raise an issue of fact regarding the adequacy of the defendant's screening process for the hiring of its bus drivers. Moreover, there was no evidence that a more thorough investigation by the defendant would have uncovered information that one of its drivers, who allegedly assaulted the plaintiff, had a propensity to commit sexual assault (see, Kenneth R. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 229 A.D.2d 159; Mataxas v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 211 A.D.2d 762; Kirkman v. Astoria Gen. Hosp., 204 A.D.2d 401; see also, Rodriguez v. United Transp. Co., 246 A.D.2d 178; compare, Graham v. City of New York, ___; ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 22, 1999]; Giangrasso v. Association for the Help of Retarded Children, 243 A.D.2d 680; Pratt v. Ocean Med. Care, P.C., 236 A.D.2d 380).
Additionally, the proposed new cause of action to recover damages for negligent supervision does not relate back to the time of the original complaint because the facts alleged in the original complaint failed to give notice of the facts necessary to support the amended pleading (see, Infurna v. City of New York, ___ A.D.2d ___ [1st Dept., Mar. 2, 2000]; Roe v. Barad, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Dec. 6, 1999]; Clark v. Foley, 240 A.D.2d 458; Rende v. Cutrofello, 226 A.D.2d 694).
SANTUCCI, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.