Butera v. Village of Bellport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butera v. Village of Bellport

128 A.D.3d 995, 10 N.Y.S.3d 292

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

DecidedMay 27, 2015

Docket2014-07018

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 995 (Butera v. Village of Bellport) 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

Butera v. Village of Bellport, 128 A.D.3d 995, 10 N.Y.S.3d 292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated June 2, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she was attacked by fellow campers at a summer camp run by the defendant. The infant plaintiff alleged that the attack lasted for approximately five minutes before a camp counselor, who had been in the vicinity since the attack began, came to her assistance. Subsequently, the infant plaintiff, and her mother suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that its employees adequately supervised the infant plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Schools and camps have a duty to provide supervision to ensure the safety of those in their charge, and are liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; DiGiacomo v Town of Babylon, 124 AD3d 828 [2015]; Harris v Five Point Mission —Camp Olmstedt, 73 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2010]). Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima *996 facie, that its employees provided adequate supervision. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant’s employees were presented with a potentially dangerous situation and failed to take “energetic steps to intervene” in time to prevent campers from injuring another (Lawes v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 NY2d 302, 305 [1965]; see Buchholz v Patchogue-Medford School Dist., 88 AD3d 843, 845 [2011]; McLeod v City of New York, 32 AD3d 907, 908 [2006]; Siller v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 18 AD3d 532, 533 [2005]). Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 852 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Cohen and Maltese, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated June 2, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she was attacked by fellow campers at a summer camp run by the defendant. The infant plaintiff alleged that the attack lasted for approximately five minutes before a camp counselor, who had been in the vicinity since the attack began, came to her assistance. Subsequently, the infant plaintiff, and her mother suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that its employees adequately supervised the infant plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Schools and camps have a duty to provide supervision to ensure the safety of those in their charge, and are liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; DiGiacomo v Town of Babylon, 124 AD3d 828 [2015]; Harris v Five Point Mission —Camp Olmstedt, 73 AD3d 1127, 1128 [2010]). Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima *996 facie, that its employees provided adequate supervision. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant’s employees were presented with a potentially dangerous situation and failed to take “energetic steps to intervene” in time to prevent campers from injuring another (Lawes v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 NY2d 302, 305 [1965]; see Buchholz v Patchogue-Medford School Dist., 88 AD3d 843, 845 [2011]; McLeod v City of New York, 32 AD3d 907, 908 [2006]; Siller v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 18 AD3d 532, 533 [2005]). Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 852 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Cohen and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 995, 10 N.Y.S.3d 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butera-v-village-of-bellport-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack