Diaz v. City of Yonkers

103 A.D.3d 682, 959 N.Y.S.2d 720
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 103 A.D.3d 682 (Diaz v. City of Yonkers) 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
Diaz v. City of Yonkers, 103 A.D.3d 682, 959 N.Y.S.2d 720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[683]*683In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J), dated August 12, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). A school, however, is not an insurer of its students’ safety, and will be held liable only for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see Paca v City of New York, 51 AD3d 991, 992 [2008]; Janukajtis v Fallon, 284 AD2d 428, 429 [2001]). “Where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of [a school] is warranted” (Convey v City of Rye School Dist, 271 AD2d 154, 160 [2000]; see Atehortua v Lewin, 90 AD3d 794 [2011]; Tanenbaum v Minnesauke Elementary School, 73 AD3d 743, 744 [2010]; Siegell v Herricks Union Free School Dist., 7 AD3d 607, 608 [2004]; Tanon v Eppler, 5 AD3d 667, 668 [2004]).

Here, the defendants, the City of Yonkers and the Yonkers Board of Education, established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the accident, which occurred when the plaintiff suddenly fainted, could not have been prevented by the most intense supervision (see Atehortua v Lewin, 90 AD3d at 796). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Brian O. v Riverhead Cent. School Dist., 95 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2012]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Colantonio v. Mount Sinai Union Free Sch. Dist.
2021 NY Slip Op 02510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Jackson v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist.
2019 NY Slip Op 4921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Hurley v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist.
2018 NY Slip Op 5291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Simonides Ex Rel. Simonides v. Eastchester Union Free School District
140 A.D.3d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Pierre v. Ramapo Central School District
124 A.D.3d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Aminov v. Samuel Field YM & YWHA, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
103 A.D.3d 682, 959 N.Y.S.2d 720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-2013.