J.A.L.D. v. Brightside Academy, Inc.

2020 NY Slip Op 351
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 16, 2020
Docket10789
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 351 (J.A.L.D. v. Brightside Academy, Inc.) 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
J.A.L.D. v. Brightside Academy, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

J.A.L.D. v Brightside Academy, Inc. (2020 NY Slip Op 00351)
J.A.L.D. v Brightside Academy, Inc.
2020 NY Slip Op 00351
Decided on January 16, 2020
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 16, 2020
Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kern, Singh, JJ.

10789

[*1] J.A.L.D., etc., 28292/17E Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Brightside Academy, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, The City of New York, et al., Defendants.


Molod Spitz & DeSantis, P.C., New York (Marcy Sonneborn of counsel), for appellant.

The Arce Law Office, PLLC, Bronx (Michael Arce of counsel), for respondent.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered June 5, 2019, which, inter alia, denied the motion of defendant Brightside Acadamy, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, without costs, and defendant's motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs commenced this personal injury action to recover for a laceration sustained by the infant plaintiff to his forehead while he was in the care of defendant day care center. Defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it adequately supervised the infant plaintiff and that the subject classroom was in a reasonably safe condition (Stephenson v City of New York, 19 NY3d 1031, 1033 [2012]; Kellman v 45 Tiemann Assoc., 87 NY2d 871, 872 [1995]).

In response, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether there was adequate supervision or whether the subject classroom was in a reasonably safe condition.

We have considered plaintiffs' other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 16, 2020

CLERK



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

Related

Stephenson v. City of New York
978 N.E.2d 1251 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
Kellman v. 45 Tiemann Associates, Inc.
662 N.E.2d 255 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jald-v-brightside-academy-inc-nyappdiv-2020.