Summary
This Appellate Division, Third Department opinion reviews a trial court's order partially denying a former college wrestling coach's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff alleged multiple tort claims, including negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault, stemming from the defendant's coaching practices and conduct between 2014 and 2018. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendant failed to eliminate material questions of fact regarding whether his actions breached his duty of care or intentionally placed the plaintiff in apprehension of imminent harm. Accordingly, the negligence and assault causes of action were properly permitted to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the lower court's denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim
- Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the denial of summary judgment on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim
- Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the denial of summary judgment on the assault claim
- Whether unpreserved arguments raised on appeal are reviewable
Holdings
- The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim, finding that material issues of fact as to duty, breach, and proximate cause remain.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient negligent conduct to survive summary judgment.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether Defendant intentionally placed Plaintiff in apprehension of imminent battery.
- The court held that arguments not raised in the summary‑judgment motion and not preserved are not reviewable on appeal.
Key quotations
“On a motion for summary judgment, it is the movant's initial burden to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form demonstrating the absence of any material issues of fact. Upon such a showing, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a triable issue of fact, again through the submission of competent evidence.” (at 1)
“if taken literally, defendant's statement directing a teammate to punch plaintiff would place plaintiff in apprehension of an imminent battery.” (at 1)
Factual background
Between 2014 and 2018, plaintiff Connor Calkins was a Division I wrestler coached by defendant Matthew Dernlan at Binghamton University. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's coaching methods—including "I Quit" matches, aggressive verbal conduct, and an incident where Defendant ordered a teammate to punch Plaintiff—caused emotional and psychological injury. The record contained testimony about intense practices, a laundry‑basket incident, and a threatened punch that was not carried out.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Broome County, granted summary judgment in part, dismissing the intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort claims, but denied summary judgment on the negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault claims. The appellant appealed.