Alexander v. Rippe
This text of Alexander v. Rippe (Alexander v. Rippe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Alexander v Rippe
2026 NY Slip Op 02015
April 2, 2026
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
James Alexander, Appellant,
v
Dylan Rippe et al., Defendants, and Chili Soccer Association, Inc., et al., Respondents.
Decided and Entered:April 2, 2026
CV-24-2084
Calendar Date: February 9, 2026
Before: Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Powers And Corcoran, JJ.
Mandel Clemente, PC, East Greenbush (Linda A. Mandel Clemente of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Kevin P. Westerman, Elmsford (Gregory Perrotta of counsel), for respondents.
Powers, J.
Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Richard Kupferman, J.), entered November 18, 2024 in Saratoga County, which granted a motion by defendant Chili Soccer Association, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against it.
In 2016, plaintiff was participating in a youth soccer tournament in the Town of Fort Ann, Washington County, when he sustained a broken clavicle, which he claims was the result of being thrown to the ground by defendant Dylan Rippe. At that time both plaintiff and Rippe were minors playing for opposing teams, with Rippe playing for defendant Chili Soccer Association, Inc. In 2019, plaintiff commenced this action in Saratoga County against Rippe, Rippe's parents, Chili Soccer and defendant New York State West Youth Soccer Association, Inc.FN1 Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that Chili Soccer was negligent in its supervision of Rippe, which ultimately resulted in plaintiff's injuries. As is relevant here, following joinder of issue, Chili Soccer moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims against it on the basis that it did not host the tournament or select the referees as plaintiff alleged and, even so, any alleged negligence on its part was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Supreme Court, finding Chili Soccer to have met its burden on summary judgment and that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, granted the motion and dismissed the claims against Chili Soccer. Plaintiff appeals.FN2
It is well settled that, "[o]n a motion for summary judgment, the movant must establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting competent evidence that demonstrates the absence of any material issue of fact. If the movant makes such a showing, thereby satisfying this burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to demonstrate that a triable issue of fact exists" (Vickers v Parcells, 198 AD3d 1160, 1161 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). "In considering applications of this nature, courts must focus on issue finding rather than issue determination, and deny the drastic remedy of summary judgment if there is any doubt as to whether a material factual issue exists or if such an issue is even arguable" (Smero v City of Saratoga Springs, 160 AD3d 1169, 1170 [3d Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).
Coaches and associated teams or clubs, like schools and youth camps, " 'are under a duty to adequately supervise the [youths] in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision' " (Shoemaker v Whitney Point Cent. School Dist., 299 AD2d 719, 720 [3d Dept 2002], lv dismissed 99 NY2d 610 [2003], quoting Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; see Beninati v City of Troy, 163 AD3d 1241, 1242 [3d Dept 2018]; see also DiGiacomo v Town of Babylon, 124 AD3d 828, 829 [2d Dept 2015]). "They are not[*2], however, insurers of safety and will not be held liable for every thoughtless or careless act by which one [youth] may injure another" (Foster v New Berlin Cent. School Dist., 246 AD2d 880, 881 [3d Dept 1998] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Thus, "[w]here liability is imposed on a [defendant] for negligent supervision due to injuries related to an individual's intentional acts, the plaintiff generally must demonstrate the [defendant]'s prior knowledge or notice of the individual's propensity or likelihood to engage in such conduct, so that the individual's acts could be anticipated or were foreseeable" (Dia CC. v Ithaca City School Dist., 304 AD2d 955, 956 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 506 [2003]; see Osmanzai v Sports & Arts in Schools Found., Inc., 116 AD3d 937, 938 [2d Dept 2014]; LaPage v Evans, 37 AD3d 1019, 1020 [3d Dept 2007]). "The test for causation is whether, under all the circumstances, the chain of events that followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the [defendant's] negligence" (T.E. v South Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 232 AD3d 1185, 1186-1187 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). Still, "[w]here . . . the underlying accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the . . . defendant is warranted" (Elbadwi v Saugerties Cent. Sch. Dist., 141 AD3d 805, 807 [3d Dept 2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]).
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Chili Soccer offered, among other things, the deposition testimony of plaintiff, Rippe, Rippe's parents, as well as that of his coach Jeffery Vieira and a video of the incident. Despite plaintiff's description of an earlier incident in a prior game between his team and Chili Soccer during the same tournament, Vieira affirmed that he was not aware of any such incident, did not recall receiving any warnings about any players and no players from his team received a yellow or a red card during that game. Rippe also testified that he had never received a yellow or a red card or even a warning for rough play in all his time playing soccer and Vieira confirmed that Rippe was not known to be an aggressive player. Thus, taken collectively, the testimony established that Vieira was not on notice of any inclination toward aggressive play by Rippe or any animosity amongst players. Chili Soccer could not therefore have reasonably foreseen or anticipated Rippe's alleged tortious conduct (see Thomas v United States Soccer Fedn., 236 AD2d 600, 602 [2d Dept 1997]; compare T.E. v South Glens Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 232 AD3d at 1187; Wood v Watervliet City School Dist., 30 AD3d 663, 664 [3d Dept 2006]). Moreover, this proof — most notably, the video of the incident — likewise established that plaintiff's [*3]injuries were the result of a sudden act that came without warning. As a result, Vieira did not have the opportunity to intercede and, thus, defendant established that any purported inadequate supervision by Chili Soccer was not a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI