Hamill v. Town of Southampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hamill v. Town of Southampton

261 A.D.2d 361, 689 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 361 (Hamill v. Town of Southampton) 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

Hamill v. Town of Southampton, 261 A.D.2d 361, 689 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an ac[362]*362tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 7, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 25, 1995, the plaintiff David Lee Hamill, a seventh-grade student at Hampton Bays High School, was injured while running to intercept the football at a touch football game during lunch recess. The conduct of a teacher who was participating in the game did not expose the injured plaintiff to any unreasonable risks (cf., Pike v Gouverneur Cent. School Dist., 249 AD2d 820) and did not violate any duty to supervise him (cf., Cody v Massapequa Union Free School Dist. No. 23, 227 AD2d 368). Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an ac[362]*362tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 7, 1998, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 25, 1995, the plaintiff David Lee Hamill, a seventh-grade student at Hampton Bays High School, was injured while running to intercept the football at a touch football game during lunch recess. The conduct of a teacher who was participating in the game did not expose the injured plaintiff to any unreasonable risks (cf., Pike v Gouverneur Cent. School Dist., 249 AD2d 820) and did not violate any duty to supervise him (cf., Cody v Massapequa Union Free School Dist. No. 23, 227 AD2d 368). Accordingly, the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 361, 689 N.Y.S.2d 196, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamill-v-town-of-southampton-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack