David v. County of Suffolk

New York Court of Appeals

David v. County of Suffolk

807 N.E.2d 278, 1 N.Y.3d 525, 775 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3950

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by55 cases

This text of 807 N.E.2d 278 (David v. County of Suffolk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David v. County of Suffolk, 807 N.E.2d 278, 1 N.Y.3d 525, 775 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3950 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that defendant Smithtown Central School District demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligent supervision claim. The infant plaintiff was injured in her second-grade gym class while participating in a cargo net climbing exercise. Although we have recognized that “[s]chools are not insurers of safety,” they are obligated to exercise such care of their students “as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994], citing Lawes v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 NY2d 302, 306 [1965]). In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant relied on the deposition testimony of the physical education teacher supervising the class, who explained that he instructed the students on net climbing, demonstrated proper techniques and was 10 to 12 steps away from the infant plaintiff when she fell. The expert affidavit plaintiffs offered in response failed to establish the foundation or the source of the standards underlying the conclusion that defendant’s supervision of the infant plaintiff was inadequate. As such, the affidavit “lacked probative force and was insufficient as a matter of law” to overcome the school district’s motion for summary judgment (Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 545 [2002]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Supreme Court and the Appellate Division that defendant Smithtown Central School District demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligent supervision claim. The infant plaintiff was injured in her second-grade gym class while participating in a cargo net climbing exercise. Although we have recognized that “[s]chools are not insurers of safety,” they are obligated to exercise such care of their students “as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994], citing Lawes v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 NY2d 302, 306 [1965]). In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant relied on the deposition testimony of the physical education teacher supervising the class, who explained that he instructed the students on net climbing, demonstrated proper techniques and was 10 to 12 steps away from the infant plaintiff when she fell. The expert affidavit plaintiffs offered in response failed to establish the foundation or the source of the standards underlying the conclusion that defendant’s supervision of the infant plaintiff was inadequate. As such, the affidavit “lacked probative force and was insufficient as a matter of law” to overcome the school district’s motion for summary judgment (Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 545 [2002]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 N.E.2d 278, 1 N.Y.3d 525, 775 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-county-of-suffolk-ny-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack