Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/George v. Call

George v. Call

297 A.D.2d 703, 747 N.Y.2d 391, 747 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 23, 2002
StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 703 (George v. Call) 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
George v. Call, 297 A.D.2d 703, 747 N.Y.2d 391, 747 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

A party moving for summary judgment must establish as a matter of law that there are no triable issues of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562) before the burden shifts to the opposing party (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851).

In this case, the defendant Clarkstown Central School District (hereinafter the School District) did not sustain its burden on its motion for summary judgment. A question of fact was presented as to whether the School District was negligent in failing to properly supervise the students in question.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the School District’s motion for summary judgment. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
297 A.D.2d 703, 747 N.Y.2d 391, 747 N.Y.S.2d 391, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-call-nyappdiv-2002.