ELDRED, NY — The New York State Appellate Court on July 7 overturned a lower court ruling, and said a lawsuit against the Eldred Central School could move forward.

Anthony Motta Jr., a student at Eldred Junior-Senior High School, and his mother sued the district for failure to prevent Motta from being bullied by several students from 2011 through 2013.

According to court documents Motta was “subjected to harassment and bullying by several classmates, who called him disparaging epithets, urinated on him, damaged or otherwise snatched his belongings and engaged in physical altercations with him. On several occasions, the school principal, a guidance counselor and a school security guard were notified of the bullying and some remedial action was taken; the bullying allegedly continued.”

Motta and his mother sued the district saying it was liable because not preventing the bullying was a violation of the Dignity for All Students Act (DASA). Supreme Court Judge Michael McGuire dismissed the lawsuit in 2015 because he ruled DASA does not provide for a “private right of action.”

The appellate court did not disagree with that part of the ruling, but the higher court found that other case law applied to the case.

The court quoted earlier cases that said, “Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.” Also, “In that regard, a school district is held to the same degree of care as would a reasonably prudent parent placed in comparable circumstances.”

And further, “In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.”

The court wrote that it was clear the school district officials were notified about many bullying instances, and the principal and guidance counselor indicated they investigated and addressed the situation through discipline of the offending students, and attempted to keep Motta away from the students.

But the district maintained that not all of the bullying incidents were reported to school officials and officials and “that many of the investigations into Motta’s complaints concluded that Motta also engaged in harassing and violent conduct with the other students.”

Affidavits from Motta and his mother contradicted this assertion and noted “specific occasions where defendant’s response to Motta’s complaints of bullying appeared inadequate and, at times, met with inappropriate responses and the blame was placed on Motta.”

The court wrote, “We find that the conflicting evidence establishes triable issues of fact with regard to whether defendant adequately supervised the students and, if not, whether such negligent supervision was the proximate cause of Motta’s injuries.”

The case may now go to trial, or a settlement may be reached.