Acosta v |
2024 NY Slip Op 03154 |
Decided on |
Appellate Division, Second 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 June 12, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate
Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
BARRY E. WARHIT
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.
2023-02288
(Index No. 59761/20)
[*1]Karen Acosta, etc., respondent,
v
Yonkers Public Schools, appellant.
Matthew I. Gallagher, Corporation Counsel,
Denlea & Carton LLP,
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the
defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court,
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and
the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is
granted.
The plaintiff, as mother and natural guardian of her infant child,
commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for personal
injuries the infant child allegedly sustained when, as a first-grade student,
the infant child fell from a slide at a school playground during recess. The
complaint asserted a cause of action alleging negligent supervision. The
defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending,
among other things, that it provided adequate supervision of the infant child
and, in any event, that any alleged negligence on its part was not a proximate
cause of the infant child's injuries. In an order dated
"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" (Mirand v
City of
Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that the
level of supervision it provided, which consisted of at least two school
monitors for a group of approximately 30 children, was adequate (see Simonides v Eastchester Union Free Sch. Dist., 140
AD3d 728, 730; Calcagno v John F. Kennedy Intermediate Sch., 61 AD3d
911, 912; Navarra v Lynbrook Pub. Schools, Lynbrook Union Free
School Dist., 289 AD2d 211) and, in any event, that any alleged negligence
on its part was not a proximate cause of the infant child's injuries (see Gonzalez v South Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist.,
176 AD3d 920, 921; Ponzini v Sag Harbor Union Free Sch. Dist., 166 AD3d 914,
916). In [*2]opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a
triable issue of fact.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
DILLON, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court