Brief a case

Anonymous
timer Asked: Jul 1st, 2018
account_balance_wallet $40

Question description

brief a business case following the distribution.

Student, who was stabbed during altercation with another student, brought negligence action against business school, alleging it breached its duty to protect him from dangerous conduct of other student. The Supreme Court, Albany County, Keegan, J., granted school’s motion for summary judgment. Student appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Mikoll, J.P., held that: (1) nondegree granting business school was functional equivalent of college such that it was not a guarantor or insurer of safety of its students, and (2) school was not on notice of likelihood of dangerous conduct by other student.

read two upload files carefuly.

Ellis v. Mildred Elley School Inc., 245 A.D.2d 994 (1997) 667 N.Y.S.2d 86, 123 Ed. Law Rep. 838, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11421 245 A.D.2d 994 Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York. Dean ELLIS, Appellant, v. MILDRED ELLEY SCHOOL INC., Respondent. Dec. 31, 1997. Student, who was stabbed during altercation with another student, brought negligence action against business school, alleging it breached its duty to protect him from dangerous conduct of other student. The Supreme Court, Albany County, Keegan, J., granted school’s motion for summary judgment. Student appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Mikoll, J.P., held that: (1) nondegree granting business school was functional equivalent of college such that it was not a guarantor or insurer of safety of its students, and (2) school was not on notice of likelihood of dangerous conduct by other student. Affirmed. Attorneys and Law Firms seen looking through plaintiff’s book bag. An argument and physical confrontation ensued. Plaintiff and Miller were separated by defendant’s executive director, Robert Flynn, who had been summoned by defendant’s Student Services Coordinator, Patricia Frazier. **87 Miller was escorted to his classroom by Flynn; Frazier took plaintiff to her office, where she attempted to calm him and inquire into the nature of the dispute. Shortly thereafter, Miller appeared at Frazier’s office, and the two men engaged in a second physical confrontation, during which Miller stabbed plaintiff. Plaintiff commenced this negligence action against defendant, alleging in essence that defendant breached its duty to protect plaintiff from the dangerous conduct of Miller. After completion of discovery and examinations before trial, defendant moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant breached a legal duty owed to plaintiff. We affirm. To prevail upon a negligence claim, plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation and damages. The existence of a legal duty presents a question of law for the court (Eiseman v. State of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 175, 518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 511 N.E.2d 1128; Talbot v. New York Inst. of Technology, 225 A.D.2d 611, 639 N.Y.S.2d 135). [1] **86 Pattison, Sampson, Ginsberg & Griffin P.C. (Michael E. Ginsberg, of counsel), Troy, for appellant. Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Napierski & Maloney P.C. (Mark A. Rubeo, of counsel), Albany, for respondent. Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ. Opinion *994 MIKOLL, Justice Presiding. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered February 19, 1997 in Albany County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff, age 31, and James Miller, age 48, were both *995 enrolled students at defendant, a business school. On November 17, 1994, plaintiff confronted Miller in the school cafeteria about an allegation that Miller had been Supreme Court first considered what, if any, duty was owed to plaintiff by virtue of the relationship between defendant, as a school, and plaintiff, as an enrolled student. It is well-settled that colleges “have no legal duty to shield their students from the dangerous activity of other students” (Eiseman v. State of New York, supra, at 190, 518 N.Y.S.2d 608, 511 N.E.2d 1128). This principle derives from the rejection of the notion that a college stands in loco parentis so as to trigger a special duty of protection. Implicit in this rejection is recognition of the many factors which distinguish the relationship between a college and its students from that of lower-level learning institutions and their students. One such factor is the age and maturity of the students and the concomitant need for closer supervision of younger children (see, Talbot v. New York Inst. of Technology, supra; Mintz v. State of New York, 47 A.D.2d 570, 362 N.Y.S.2d 619). [2] We find that Supreme Court properly considered defendant as the “functional equivalent” of a college. Much of plaintiff’s argument on this point rests on the claim that defendant is not *996 a “college” within the meaning of Education Law § 2(2), but rather is a non-degree granting business school, and that, as such, it © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Ellis v. Mildred Elley School Inc., 245 A.D.2d 994 (1997) 667 N.Y.S.2d 86, 123 Ed. Law Rep. 838, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11421 cannot avail itself of the rule that a college is neither a guarantor nor insurer of the safety of its students (see, Eiseman v. State of New York, supra). This argument is eminently unpersuasive, ignoring as it does the rationale behind the relaxed standard applicable to colleges and the parallel conditions existing at defendant. [3] The next inquiry undertaken by Supreme Court was whether defendant breached its duty, as a property owner, to exercise reasonable care for the protection of persons lawfully on its premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal or dangerous acts of third persons. This inquiry, in turn, entails a determination as to whether the property owner has either actual or constructive notice of the likelihood of dangerous conduct by a third person (see, Nallan v. Helmsley–Spear Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507, 519, 429 N.Y.S.2d 606, 407 N.E.2d 451; Karp v. Saks Fifth Ave., 225 A.D.2d 1014, 639 N.Y.S.2d 575; Provenzano v. Roslyn Gardens Tenants Corp., 190 A.D.2d 718, 593 N.Y.S.2d 80). [4] Plaintiff contends that the record supports his claim that defendant was on requisite notice by virtue of the initial altercation between plaintiff and Miller, a threat made to plaintiff by Miller immediately prior to the second fight, 1 prior occasions when Miller had allegedly “spoken out” inappropriately in class and his claim that Miller always carried a knife and had expressed his readiness to use it. not ask for any assistance with respect to Miller after the first altercation. In fact, moments before Miller reappeared, plaintiff asked Frazier if he could leave her office and return to the cafeteria. Defendant’s employees testified that they had no prior knowledge of any complaints or concerns regarding Miller, including any allegation that he carried a knife. As to defendant’s notice by virtue *997 of the earlier altercation, plaintiff established only that defendant’s employees became aware of a physical struggle in the cafeteria between himself and Miller; they had no knowledge or information as to its cause or who the aggressor may have been. The second altercation occurred a very short time after the first, and without warning. Miller’s alleged verbal threat, if it occurred at all, was made moments before the second altercation commenced, presenting defendant with no opportunity to act in response thereto. “[S]chool personnel cannot reasonably be expected to guard against * * * an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263; see, Ruchalski v. Schenectady County Community Coll., 239 A.D.2d 687, 656 N.Y.S.2d 784; Silver v. Sheraton–Smithtown Inn, 121 A.D.2d 711, 504 N.Y.S.2d 56). ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. [5] While ordinarily issues of actual or constructive notice, and the consequent foreseeability of harm, present questions of fact, our careful review of the record supports Supreme Court’s conclusion that no such material issues of fact existed as to whether **88 defendant had actual or constructive notice of any danger to plaintiff. The record discloses that plaintiff admitted that he never informed defendant’s employees about any prior problems with Miller before the date of his injury, never informed them that Miller carried a knife, and that he did YESAWICH, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur. All Citations 245 A.D.2d 994, 667 N.Y.S.2d 86, 123 Ed. Law Rep. 838, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11421 Footnotes 1 Plaintiff testified at his examination before trial that, while he was in Frazier’s office, Miller appeared in the doorway and said “I am going to get you, Big Guy”. Frazier testified that Miller said nothing before entering her office and resuming the struggle with plaintiff. End of Document © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 Ellis v. Mildred Elley School Inc., 245 A.D.2d 994 (1997) 667 N.Y.S.2d 86, 123 Ed. Law Rep. 838, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 11421 © 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
Preparing a Case Brief Reading the Case: Most often, you will be reading cases on Westlaw, which can be accessed online through the SUNY Canton library. When you view a case on Westlaw, it is important to know where the actual text of the case begins. At the very beginning of the text, immediately under the caption, you will see several paragraphs which are not actually the case itself. Westlaw is run by a publishing company—West Publishing. The first paragraph under the caption is a summary of the case written by an employee of a publishing company. It usually begins with the words “summary” or “holding.” These words were not written by the judge so they are not a part of the case. The “summary” is intended as a research aid. On rare occasions, the summary can even be incorrect or misleading. It is never appropriate to quote from that summary. Next, a heading appears which states “West Headnotes.” These headnotes are also not a part of the case. These headnotes are research tools created by the publisher. If you were to click on any of the hyperlinked headnotes, you would see a listing of every case that discussed that particular issue – which would probably number in the thousands. The actual decision begins after the judge is identified. In the sample case, attached, you will see “SMITH, Justice.” Sometimes it will just say “Smith, J.” The “J” always stands for Judge or Justice. Sometimes the words “Per Curiam” appear. “Per Curiam” refers to a decision handed down by the court as a whole, without identifying any particular judge as the author. Briefing a Case Different lawyers, professors, judges, etc., may use different formats for briefing. For this class, please use the following categories when briefing a case: Name and Citation; Facts; Procedural History; Issue; Holding; Reasoning. Name and Citation: The name of the case contains the names of the parties, which you would usually refer to simply by last name. If it’s a criminal case, one party will be “People” or “State” or “State of New York” (or other appropriate state name). In a Westlaw case, the citation is typically near the top of the first page and will say “cite as” followed by a series of numbers and letters. Those numbers and letters are the case citation. The citation lets you know where you can find the full case written. Court decisions, at certain levels, are published in books called “reports” or “reporters.” The first number in the citation is the volume number. The letters are the abbreviation for the particular reporter in which the case will be found. The last number refers to the page number in that volume in that reporter. So, 25 S.Ct 100 would mean the case is located in volume 25 of the Supreme Court reporter on page 100. Facts: This is the relevant factual story of the case. In many cases—particularly longer cases—it can be difficult to determine which facts to leave in and which facts to leave out. Think about which facts are really essential in order for a person reading your brief to know what happened in the case. Remember, you want to include the facts that tell the story. Procedural History: The cases you brief will typically be appellate cases, which means they started in one court, there was a decision of some sort, and they were then appealed to another court. Sometimes they will have been appealed to more than one court. The procedural history involves stating briefly what happened in each court. That is all that belongs in the procedural history section. Issue: The issue is a yes or no question that the court is being asked to answer. It is important to make the issue specific to the case. If it is too general, it will not be helpful. Sometimes (but not always), you will see language that says “The issue before the court is …” or “The question this court must answer is …”. Beware, however, that you may need to add to the court’s statement of the issue for your brief in order to make the specific issue clear. Holding: The holding has two parts. The first part is that it must be an answer to the question posed in the “Issue” section. For example, if the Issue is: “Did the lower court err in failing to provide the defendant with Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food ice cream?”, the Holding would be “Yes, the lower court erred in failing to provide the defendant with Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food ice cream” (or “No”, if that’s how the court decided). The second part of this section is to state whether the lower court’s decision was Affirmed, Reversed and/or Remanded. “Affirmed” means the appellate court agreed with the lower court; “reversed” means the appellate court disagreed with the lower court; and “remanded” means the case was sent back to the lower court. Usually, “reversed” and “remanded” go together. Reasoning: This will probably be the most difficult part of the case brief. In this section, you need to summarize the court’s basis for reaching its decision. What steps did the court go through? What chain of thought did it follow? You will need to clearly understand the reasoning of the court and then put it into your own words. If certain wording is important and you wish to quote from the decision itself, be sure to put the quote in quotation marks and indicate the page number. General Guidelines Don’t overly rely on quoting from the case itself. I want you to put things into your own words as much as possible. It’s sometimes tempting for students to simply cut and paste from a court decision, but this frequently ends up being jumbled. Additionally, and most importantly, I want you to be able to read, comprehend, and express that comprehension by summarizing the case in your own words. If you do quote from the court decision, you need to be sure to put it in quotation marks and indicate the page number from which you are quoting .

Tutor Answer

Ryann N
School: UIUC

Attached.

Running head: DEAN ELLIS V. MILDRED ELLEY SCHOOL INC. CASE ANALYSIS

Dean Ellis V. Mildred Elley School Inc. Case Analysis
Name
Institution

1

DEAN ELLIS V. MILDRED ELLEY SCHOOL INC. CASE ANALYSIS

2

Dean ELLIS v. Mildred Elley School Inc.
The parties
Appellant: Dean Ellis
Respondent: Mildred Elley School Inc.
Facts of the case
A Mildred Elley School Inc. student was stabbed during an altercation with another student
while within the school. The injured students sued the Mildred School for breach of its duty to
protect him from the dangerous conduct of the other student. The Supreme Court, Albany County
granted a motion for summary judgment. The student appealed the decision, which provided a
greater focus on important elements considered in the case especially considering the fact tha...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Wow this is really good.... didn't expect it. Sweet!!!!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors