Mamadou S. v. Feliciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mamadou S. v. Feliciano

123 A.D.3d 610, 999 N.Y.S.2d 65

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2014

Docket13816 24262/04

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 610 (Mamadou S. v. Feliciano) 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

Mamadou S. v. Feliciano, 123 A.D.3d 610, 999 N.Y.S.2d 65 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered July 22, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant The Board of Education of the City of New York (BOE), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied as to BOE.

Plaintiff, at the time an eighth grade student, was injured when he darted or was pushed into the street and was hit by a car while playing tag in front of his school. Although the driver of the car was not negligent in causing the accident (Sakho v City of New York, 88 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2011]), the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant BOE owed a duty of care to protect the infant plaintiff from traffic hazards after he *611 was discharged by the school bus in front of the school, five minutes before the school day would begin (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560-561 [1976]; Thai v Roman Catholic Church of St. Nicholas of Tolentine, 34 AD3d 225 [1st Dept 2006]), and whether that duty was breached by the school’s failure to provide adequate safety measures, such as traffic barricades, proximately causing the injury (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered July 22, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant The Board of Education of the City of New York (BOE), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied as to BOE.

Plaintiff, at the time an eighth grade student, was injured when he darted or was pushed into the street and was hit by a car while playing tag in front of his school. Although the driver of the car was not negligent in causing the accident (Sakho v City of New York, 88 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2011]), the record presents issues of fact as to whether defendant BOE owed a duty of care to protect the infant plaintiff from traffic hazards after he *611 was discharged by the school bus in front of the school, five minutes before the school day would begin (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560-561 [1976]; Thai v Roman Catholic Church of St. Nicholas of Tolentine, 34 AD3d 225 [1st Dept 2006]), and whether that duty was breached by the school’s failure to provide adequate safety measures, such as traffic barricades, proximately causing the injury (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 610, 999 N.Y.S.2d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mamadou-s-v-feliciano-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack