N.Y. General Obligations Law § 3-112

Five thousand dollars parent liability - N.Y. GOL § 3-112

Parents liable up to five thousand dollars for willful damage or theft by child over ten and under eighteen. Also false bomb reports. N.Y. GOL § 3-112.

Official text N.Y. General Obligations Law § 3-112 — New York

§ 3-112. Liability of parents and legal guardians having custody of an infant for certain damages caused by such infant. 1. The parent or legal guardian, other than the state, a local social services department or a foster parent, of an infant over ten and less than eighteen years of age, shall be liable to any public officer, organization or authority, having by law the care and/or custody of any public property of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, or to any private individual or organization having by law the care, custody and/or ownership of any private property, for damages caused by such infant, where such infant has willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully damaged, defaced or destroyed such public or private property, whether real or personal, or, where such infant, with intent to deprive the owner and/or custodian of such property or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, has knowingly entered or remained in a building and has wrongfully taken, obtained or withheld such public or private personal property from such building which personal property is owned or maintained by the state or any political subdivision thereof or which is owned or maintained by any individual, organization or authority, or where such infant has falsely reported an incident or placed a false bomb as defined in section 240.50, subdivision one or two of section 240.55, section 240.60 or section 240.61 of the penal law. Such public officer, organization or authority, or private individual or organization, as the case may be, may bring an action for civil damages in a court of competent jurisdiction for a judgment to recover such damages from such parent or legal guardian other than the state or a local social services department or a foster parent. For the purposes of this subdivision, damages for falsely reporting an incident or placing a false bomb shall mean the funds reasonably expended by a victim in responding to such false report, as set forth in subdivision eleven of section 60.27 of the penal law. In no event shall such damages portion of a judgment authorized by this section, as described in this subdivision, exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.

  • 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section, prior to the entering of a judgment under this section in the sum total of five hundred dollars or more, the court shall provide such parent or legal guardian of such infant with an opportunity to make an application to the court based upon such parent's or legal guardian's financial inability to pay any portion or all of the amount of such sum total which is in excess of five hundred dollars, and upon the return date of such application, or any adjournment thereof, the court shall, in summary fashion, hear and consider all evidence of financial hardship presented tending to establish the inability of such parent or legal guardian to pay any or all of the amount of the sum total in excess of five hundred dollars, and the court shall render its decision as to such party's inability to make such payment based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented. Upon a decision that such party has established his or her inability to make such payment, the court shall enter the judgment authorized by this section but in an amount within the financial capacity of such parent or legal guardian, provided, however, that since the original of the sum total exceeded five hundred dollars, no such judgment shall be entered for an amount which is less than five hundred dollars.
  • 3. It shall be a defense to an action brought under this section that restitution has been paid pursuant to section seven hundred fifty-eight-a or 353.6 of the family court act, or paragraph (g) of subdivision two of section 65.10 of the penal law. It shall also be a defense to an action brought under this section that such infant had voluntarily and without good cause abandoned the home of the parent or guardian and without good cause refused to submit to the guidance and control of the parent or guardian prior to and at the time of the occurrence of such damages or destruction. In no event shall it be a defense that the parent or legal guardian has exercised due diligent supervision over the activities of such infant, provided, however, that in the interests of justice, the court may consider mitigating circumstances that bear directly upon the actions of the parent or legal guardian in supervising such unemancipated infant.
  • 4. For the purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply:

a. The terms "enters or remains unlawfully" and "building" shall have the same meaning as ascribed to such terms in section 140.00 of the penal law.

b. "Public officer, organization or authority" shall include but not be limited to: those having by law the care and custody of a municipal district or corporation; those having by law the care and custody of the public property of the state or of any agency, department, board, bureau, commission, division, office, council, committee of the state, or of a public benefit corporation or public authority; and the board of education or trustees of any city, union free or common school district or the city board of any New York City community school district.

c. "Private individual or organization" shall include, but not be limited to: any individual, private or public corporation or partnership or sole proprietorship, organized church, synagogue or temple, not-for-profit organization or corporation, cemetery corporation, or, if such liability is as a result of damage upon any cemetery plot or mausoleum, the next of kin of a person upon whose gravesite such damage or destruction occurred.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

The section fixes an age band, a category of conduct and a cap. The parent or legal guardian - not the state, a local social services department or a foster parent - of a child over ten and under eighteen is liable to the public body or private individual or organization having care, custody or ownership of the property for damage where the child has willfully, maliciously or unlawfully damaged, defaced or destroyed it. The same liability applies where the child knowingly entered or remained in a building and wrongfully took or withheld property from it with intent to deprive the owner, and where the child falsely reported an incident or placed a false bomb, in which case damages mean the funds reasonably expended in responding. The ceiling is stated once and applies to all of it: in no event shall the damages portion of a judgment exceed five thousand dollars.

Subdivision 2 builds in a means test. Before entering a judgment of five hundred dollars or more, the court must give the parent an opportunity to apply on the ground of financial inability to pay the amount above five hundred dollars, hear the evidence in summary fashion and decide on the balance of probabilities. If inability is established, the judgment is entered within the parent's financial capacity - but never for less than five hundred dollars where the original total exceeded that figure.

Subdivision 3 sets out the defenses, and one omission is as important as what is there. It is a defense that restitution has been paid under the specified provisions of the Family Court Act or Penal Law, and it is a defense that the child had voluntarily and without good cause left home and refused to submit to the parent's guidance and control before and at the time of the damage. But the text says expressly that it is never a defense that the parent exercised diligent supervision - though the court may, in the interests of justice, consider mitigating circumstances bearing on the parent's supervision.

When it applies

  • A school bills a parent for a window a teenager broke deliberately.
  • A shop pursues parents after a child took goods from the premises.
  • A municipality claims the cost of cleaning graffiti from public property.
  • A parent receives a demand far above five thousand dollars for damage a child caused.
  • A parent of limited means faces a judgment and wants the court to consider ability to pay.

What this section does not say

  • It does not cover accidents. The conduct must be willful, malicious or unlawful damage, defacement or destruction - or the taking or false-report conduct the section describes.
  • It does not apply to children ten or under, or to those who have turned eighteen.
  • It does not exceed five thousand dollars, however large the loss.
  • It does not cover personal injury. The subject is damage to property, plus the response costs for false reports and false bombs.
  • Careful parenting is not a defense. The section says so in terms, allowing it only as a mitigating circumstance.
  • It does not apply to the state, a local social services department or a foster parent.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

Two fifteen-year-olds break a school window on a dare. The district sends one of the parents a bill for the whole replacement, several times the cost of the glass once the frame and the out-of-hours labor are added.

How the wording applies

The section makes the parent of a child over ten and under eighteen liable to the owner of the property for willful, malicious or unlawful damage, and then caps it: in no event may the damages portion of a judgment exceed five thousand dollars. Above five hundred dollars the parent must be given an opportunity to apply on the ground of financial inability to pay the excess, so what the figure turns on is the cap and the parent's means, not the size of the district's invoice.

How the parties settled it

The parent agrees to pay the glazier's invoice directly and by a named date, and the district agrees to close the matter without adding its administrative costs on top.

Illustrative example

A parent who confiscated the spray cans, went to the school and grounded the child is nevertheless sent a bill by the town for cleaning graffiti off a bridge.

How the wording applies

Subdivision 3 lists the defenses and pointedly excludes this one: it is never a defense that the parent exercised diligent supervision, though the court may consider mitigating circumstances bearing on supervision in the interests of justice. The defense that does exist turns on a different fact - whether the child had voluntarily and without good cause left home and refused to submit to the parent's guidance and control before and at the time of the damage.

How the parties settled it

The parent agrees to pay the cleaning cost in three instalments and the child spends four Saturdays with the town's maintenance crew, which the town accepts in place of the last instalment.

Illustrative example

A parent on a low income faces a demand of four thousand dollars for property a child destroyed, and cannot produce that sum in one payment or anything like it.

How the wording applies

Before entering a judgment of five hundred dollars or more the court must give the parent an opportunity to apply on the ground of financial inability to pay the amount above five hundred, hear the evidence in summary fashion and decide on the balance of probabilities. So the outcome turns on proof of means - and the floor is fixed by the text: the judgment cannot come in below five hundred dollars where the total exceeded it.

How the parties settled it

They agree five hundred dollars now and modest monthly payments against the balance for a year, with the claimant agreeing to write off whatever is left if every instalment arrives on time.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 2003 to 2017.

In re Sean P.K., 70 A.D.3d 1308 (2010)

Appellate Division

What the court had to decide

Whether the Family Court erred in ordering the Office of Probation to disclose the juvenile's name and address to the victim to enable the victim to bring an action against the parents under General Obligations Law § 3-112 (1).

What it held

The court held that the presentment agency, which requested the disclosure, is not a proper party plaintiff in an action under General Obligations Law § 3-112, so the Family Court erred in ordering such disclosure.

In the court's words
We agree with respondent that the court erred in ordering the Office of Probation, at the request of the presentment agency, to disclose his name and address to the victim to enable the victim to commence an action against his parents pursuant to General Obligations Law § 3-112 (1).

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

Someone's child damaged my property: what the law says in six jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

N.Y. General Obligations Law § 11-101 Sue a bar for serving drunk driver? Yes - N.Y. GOL §11-101 N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-701 NY Statute of Frauds: N.Y. General Obligations Law § 5-701

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the New York Consolidated Laws.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of N.Y. General Obligations Law § 3-112 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in New York.

← All New York law pages