Borelli v. Blind Brook Unified School District

244 A.D.2d 305, 663 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11028
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 3, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 305 (Borelli v. Blind Brook Unified School District) 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.

Bluebook
Borelli v. Blind Brook Unified School District, 244 A.D.2d 305, 663 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), dated February 24, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The injured plaintiff was one of about 10 senior citizens invited to the Ridge Street School in Rye Brook, Westchester County, for its annual “Ethnic Day”. This included a buffet lunch in the school cafeteria with about 80-88 third-grade students. These students were supervised by a total of four teachers. According to the injured plaintiff, she was standing up next to a table when a girl pushed her “very hard”, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. The injured plaintiff and her husband commenced the instant action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendant was negligent in its supervision of the students.

“Schools are undér 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 * * * Schools are not insurers of safety, however, for they cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all movements and activities of students; [306]*306therefore, schools are not to be held liable ‘for every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another [person]’ ” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49). Under the facts presented, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint “because no triable issue of fact was presented as to the school’s liability for this spontaneous and unanticipated act” (Ceglia v Portledge School, 187 AD2d 550; see, Moores v City of Newburgh School Dist., 237 AD2d 265; Hauser v North Rockland Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 166 AD2d 553). Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fuzie v. William Floyd School District
270 A.D.2d 386 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Johnsen v. Cold Spring Harbor Central School District
251 A.D.2d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Schrader v. Board of Education of Taconic Hills Central School District
249 A.D.2d 741 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Malik v. Greater Johnstown Enlarged School District
248 A.D.2d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D.2d 305, 663 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borelli-v-blind-brook-unified-school-district-nyappdiv-1997.