Briggs v. Rhinebeck Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Briggs v. Rhinebeck Central School District

2 A.D.3d 383, 767 N.Y.S.2d 786

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 383 (Briggs v. Rhinebeck Central 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

Briggs v. Rhinebeck Central School District, 2 A.D.3d 383, 767 N.Y.S.2d 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Rhinebeck Central School District and Board of Education of Rhinebeck Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the separate motion of the defendant Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Dutchess County for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of the defendants were properly granted. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the actions complained of by the plaintiffs, i.e, allowing the then 17-year-old infant plaintiff to leave the defendants’ premises in the automobile of a fellow student who possessed a driver’s license, would have resulted in his being injured in an automobile collision (see Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 583-584 [1997]; Hanley v East Moriches Union Free School Dist. II, 275 AD2d 389 [2000]; Hurlburt v Noxon, 149 Misc 2d 374 [1990]; Palella v Ulmer, 136 Misc 2d 34 [1987]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants Rhinebeck Central School District and Board of Education of Rhinebeck Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and the separate motion of the defendant Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Dutchess County for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of the defendants were properly granted. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the actions complained of by the plaintiffs, i.e, allowing the then 17-year-old infant plaintiff to leave the defendants’ premises in the automobile of a fellow student who possessed a driver’s license, would have resulted in his being injured in an automobile collision (see Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 583-584 [1997]; Hanley v East Moriches Union Free School Dist. II, 275 AD2d 389 [2000]; Hurlburt v Noxon, 149 Misc 2d 374 [1990]; Palella v Ulmer, 136 Misc 2d 34 [1987]). Ritter, J.P., Florio, S. Miller and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 383, 767 N.Y.S.2d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-rhinebeck-central-school-district-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack