Seidel v. White Plains City School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seidel v. White Plains City School District

271 A.D.2d 518, 705 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4060

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 10, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered April 21, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They did not produce sufficient evidence that the so-called “floor hockey” game in question was properly supervised and controlled, or that they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the equipment used by the student participants did not unreasonably increase the risk of injury (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650). Thus, defendants’ motion should have been denied (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered April 21, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. They did not produce sufficient evidence that the so-called “floor hockey” game in question was properly supervised and controlled, or that they had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the equipment used by the student participants did not unreasonably increase the risk of injury (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650). Thus, defendants’ motion should have been denied (see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Smith, JJ., concur.

Seidel v. White Plains City School District, 271 A.D.2d 518, 705 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

271 A.D.2d 518 (Seidel v. White Plains City School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related