Oldham v. Eastport Union Free School District

26 A.D.3d 480, 809 N.Y.S.2d 461
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 480 (Oldham v. Eastport Union Free School District) 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
Oldham v. Eastport Union Free School District, 26 A.D.3d 480, 809 N.Y.S.2d 461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated May 23, 2005, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

While a school is not the insurer of the safety of students (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]), a school owes a duty to adequately supervise students in its care and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see Mirand v City of New York, supra; Ghaffari v North Rockland Cent. School Dist., 23 AD3d 342 [2005]; Rivera v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 19 AD3d 394, 395 [2005]; Doe v Rohan, 17 AD3d 509, 511 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 701 [2005]). In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by tendering [481]*481sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (id.). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Cheung v. Chao Fu
75 A.D.3d 615 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Link v. Quogue Union Free School District
38 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
McLeod v. City of New York
32 A.D.3d 907 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Intersil Corp.
31 A.D.3d 432 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 480, 809 N.Y.S.2d 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oldham-v-eastport-union-free-school-district-nyappdiv-2006.