Navarra v. Lynbrook Public Schools

289 A.D.2d 211, 733 N.Y.S.2d 730, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11784
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 3, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 211 (Navarra v. Lynbrook Public Schools) 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
Navarra v. Lynbrook Public Schools, 289 A.D.2d 211, 733 N.Y.S.2d 730, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated April 27, 2001, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

On September 18, 1997, the plaintiff Theresa Navarra, then seven years of age, allegedly sustained personal injuries, when, during a school recess, she fell from “parallel bars” in the defendant’s playground. According to the infant plaintiff, she was sitting on the parallel bars and fell off as she attempted to descend. At the time of the incident, there were four second-grade classes on the playground, totaling approximately 95 students, including four special education students, and either two or three teachers or aides supervising the children.

The defendant demonstrated, prima facie, its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, by showing that there was adequate playground supervision and, in any event, that the level of supervision was not the proximate cause of the incident (see, Tessier v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 177 AD2d 626). The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to show the existence of a triable question of fact (see, Taylor-Warner Corp. v Minskoff, 167 AD2d 382). The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to inadequate supervision and whether the level of supervision was a proximate cause of the alleged accident. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof as a matter of law, and the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Ritter, J. P., Feuerstein, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Acosta v. Yonkers Pub. Schs.
2024 NY Slip Op 03154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
J.F. v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist.
2020 NY Slip Op 3500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
V.W. v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist. at Centereach
2019 NY Slip Op 6226 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Ponzini v. Sag Harbor Union Free Sch. Dist.
2018 NY Slip Op 8046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Boland v. North Bellmore Union Free Sch. Dist.
2018 NY Slip Op 5663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Perez Ex Rel. Perez v. Comsewogue School District
141 A.D.3d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
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)
Alban v. Cornell University
48 Misc. 3d 1062 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Feldman v. Merrick Union Free School District
122 A.D.3d 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Charles v. City of Yonkers
103 A.D.3d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Benavides v. Uniondale Union Free School District
95 A.D.3d 809 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Schleef v. Riverhead Central School District
80 A.D.3d 743 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Troiani v. White Plains City School District
64 A.D.3d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Teodoro v. Longwood Central School District
63 A.D.3d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Calcagno v. John F. Kennedy Intermediate School
61 A.D.3d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Carey v. Commack Union Free School District No. 10
56 A.D.2d 506 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Miller v. Kings Park Central School District
54 A.D.3d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
David v. City of New York
40 A.D.3d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Botti v. Seaford Harbor Elementary School District 6
24 A.D.3d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Newman v. Oceanside Union Free School District
23 A.D.3d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 A.D.2d 211, 733 N.Y.S.2d 730, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/navarra-v-lynbrook-public-schools-nyappdiv-2001.