|
AL
557 Doe v Central Val. Cent. Sch. Dist.
|
|
2024 NY Slip Op
02652
|
|
Decided on May 10, 2024
|
|
Appellate Division,
Fourth Department
|
|
Published by New York State Law Reporting
Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
|
|
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the Official Reports.
|
Decided on May 10, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, BANNISTER, OGDEN,
AND DELCONTE, JJ.
970 CA 22-01908
[*1]AL 557 DOE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v
CENTRAL VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, FORMERLY KNOWN AS ILION CENTRAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, CENTRAL VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, FORMERLY
KNOWN AS ILION CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND EAST FRANKFORT SCHOOL, DEFENDANT.
GIRVIN & FERLAZZO, P.C., ALBANY
(PATRICK J. FITZGERALD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
LAFAVE, WEIN AND FRAMENT, PLLC, ALBANY
(JASON A. FRAMENT OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer
County (Jeffrey A. Tait, J.),
entered November 2, 2022.
The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part the motion of defendants to
dismiss the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed
without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the Child Victims
Act (see CPLR 214-g) against defendants Central
Valley Central School
District, formerly known as Ilion
Central School District
(Central Valley); Central Valley Central School District
Board of Education, formerly known as Ilion Central School District Board of
Education (Board); and East Frankfort
School.
The parties on this appeal do not dispute that, in 2013, Ilion
Central School District
(Ilion) merged with Mohawk
Central School District
as a part of a centralization to become Central
Valley Central School
District. After defendants answered, they moved
to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), contending,
among other things, that they are not proper parties to the action because
Central Valley did not exist until 2013, and the centralization that occurred
in 2013 pursuant to Education Law §§ 1801 and 1802 (1) resulted in the
dissolution of Ilion. They also contended that East
Frankfort School
ceased to exist in 1977 and, at all relevant times, was merely a part of Ilion
and lacked a separate and distinct legal existence. Supreme Court denied the
motion to dismiss except insofar as it sought to dismiss the amended complaint
against East Frankfort
School. Central Valley
and the Board (collectively, appellants) now appeal, and we affirm.
We conclude, initially, that the action may be maintained against Central
Valley and the Board, notwithstanding that Central
Valley and the Board came into existence in 2013 as a result of
the centralization. Education Law § 1804 provides for a centralized school district's
responsibility to a component district's property and indebtedness. Pursuant to
section 1804, a "central school district's board of education becomes the
successor in interest of the trustees of school districts which merge into the
centralized district" regardless of when the centralization occurred (Board
of Educ. of Ramapo Cent. School Dist. v Greene , 112 AD2d 182, 184 [2d Dept
1985]). Moreover, the component district "shall continue to
exist in law . . . for the purpose of providing for and paying all its just
debts" (Education Law § 1518; see § 1804 [5] [a], [b]). We [*2]therefore conclude that Central Valley and the
Board are proper parties to this action, but we note that any responsibilities
resulting from this action will be left to the Board to address by taxing only
the property owners of the component district from which those responsibilities
arose (see generally Matter of Locust Val. Lib. v Board of Educ. of Cent.
School Dist. No. 3 of Town of Oyster Bay
, 54 Misc 2d 315, 323-324 [Sup Ct, Nassau
County 1967]).
Contrary to appellants' contention, nothing in the plain language of the
relevant statutes suggests that only fixed debts known to the component
district at the time of centralization are "just debts." Plaintiff's
causes of action accrued during Ilion Central's pre-centralization existence (cf.
Barringer v Powell , 230 NY 37, 42 [1920]) and, pursuant to CPLR 214-g, the
causes of action have been timely raised. Under the circumstances of this case,
"just debts" are those debts, if any, "which shall turn out to
be just" after all legal defenses have been exhausted (Martin v Gage
, 9 NY 398, 401 [1853] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
Entered: May 10, 2024
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court