Chynna A. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chynna A. v. City of New York

2016 NY Slip Op 6985, 143 A.D.3d 623, 40 N.Y.S.3d 72

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

Docket2049 20363/13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 6985 (Chynna A. v. City of New York) 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

Chynna A. v. City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 6985, 143 A.D.3d 623, 40 N.Y.S.3d 72 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*624 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 19, 2015, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

There is no dispute that dismissal of the complaint as against defendant City of New York is warranted since it is not a proper party to the action (see Kamara v City of New York, 93 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2012]; Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]).

The remaining defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that infant plaintiff’s thumb injury was proximately caused by a sudden and unexpected collision with a fellow student during a regularly played game of tag that was held during the seventh-grade students’ gym class. No amount of supervision could have guarded against the injurious event, and as such, the alleged inadequacy of the gym teacher’s supervision of the students playing the tag game was not a substantial factor in the cause of the injury (see e.g. Kamara v City of New York, 93 AD3d at 450; Kovalenko v New York City Dept. of Educ., 135 AD3d 710 [2d Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Apart from their speculative theories, plaintiffs failed to offer an expert opinion, or competent facts from which a reasonable inference could be drawn, to substantiate their contention that the tag game was a hazardous activity for infant plaintiff’s gym class (see Luis S. v City of New York, 130 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2015]). There was no evidence indicating that infant plaintiff was injured due to crowded conditions, or due to the gym’s size, or because of any unchecked, unruly student activity. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any prior injuries sustained during the tag game that was regularly played in the school gym (see id. at 485-486).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

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

*624 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered May 19, 2015, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

There is no dispute that dismissal of the complaint as against defendant City of New York is warranted since it is not a proper party to the action (see Kamara v City of New York, 93 AD3d 449 [1st Dept 2012]; Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [1st Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 708 [2008]).

The remaining defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence showing that infant plaintiff’s thumb injury was proximately caused by a sudden and unexpected collision with a fellow student during a regularly played game of tag that was held during the seventh-grade students’ gym class. No amount of supervision could have guarded against the injurious event, and as such, the alleged inadequacy of the gym teacher’s supervision of the students playing the tag game was not a substantial factor in the cause of the injury (see e.g. Kamara v City of New York, 93 AD3d at 450; Kovalenko v New York City Dept. of Educ., 135 AD3d 710 [2d Dept 2016]).

In opposition, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Apart from their speculative theories, plaintiffs failed to offer an expert opinion, or competent facts from which a reasonable inference could be drawn, to substantiate their contention that the tag game was a hazardous activity for infant plaintiff’s gym class (see Luis S. v City of New York, 130 AD3d 485 [1st Dept 2015]). There was no evidence indicating that infant plaintiff was injured due to crowded conditions, or due to the gym’s size, or because of any unchecked, unruly student activity. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any prior injuries sustained during the tag game that was regularly played in the school gym (see id. at 485-486).

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 6985, 143 A.D.3d 623, 40 N.Y.S.3d 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chynna-a-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack