Pedroza v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pedroza v. City of New York

92 A.D.3d 404, 937 N.Y.2d 582

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 404 (Pedroza v. City of New York) 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

Pedroza v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 404, 937 N.Y.2d 582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[405]*405Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff’s son, a 10th-grade student, was injured after he lost his balance and fell while attempting to perform a martial-art maneuver during a physical education self-defense class at his school. His own testimony as to how the accident occurred demonstrates that no additional supervision could have prevented his injury (see Esponda v City of New York, 62 AD3d 458, 460 [2009]; McCollin v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 45 AD3d 478, 479 [2007]; compare Llauger v Archdiocese of N.Y., 82 AD3d 656 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants failed to exercise the care “as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, plaintiff did not submit evidence indicating that defendants violated a statute, regulation, or mandatory guideline stating that floor mats or bare feet were necessary during the practice of the martial art being performed by students (see Scarito v St. Joseph Hill Academy, 62 AD3d 773, 775 [2009]; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

[405]*405Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff’s son, a 10th-grade student, was injured after he lost his balance and fell while attempting to perform a martial-art maneuver during a physical education self-defense class at his school. His own testimony as to how the accident occurred demonstrates that no additional supervision could have prevented his injury (see Esponda v City of New York, 62 AD3d 458, 460 [2009]; McCollin v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 45 AD3d 478, 479 [2007]; compare Llauger v Archdiocese of N.Y., 82 AD3d 656 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants failed to exercise the care “as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, plaintiff did not submit evidence indicating that defendants violated a statute, regulation, or mandatory guideline stating that floor mats or bare feet were necessary during the practice of the martial art being performed by students (see Scarito v St. Joseph Hill Academy, 62 AD3d 773, 775 [2009]; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003]). Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 404, 937 N.Y.2d 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedroza-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack