MOISE v. The Chapin School, Defendant–Appellant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered February 22, 2024, which, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant The Chapin School (Chapin) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment was properly denied in this action where plaintiff was injured when, while standing underneath monkey bars in Schurz Park in Manhattan, a group of other Chapin students climbed atop the monkey bars, which then collapsed.  Sufficient evidence was presented to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the school was aware of, facilitated, or sponsored the photo shoot in Schurz Park where plaintiff was injured.  The evidence showed that school staff provided the camera and uniforms that were worn by the graduating seniors and that student yearbook staff took the pictures on the monkey bars with the knowledge of Chapin's employees.  Plaintiff and the Parks Department supervisor testified that Chapin students regularly utilized the playground equipment during recess and for school-sponsored events, and plaintiff and the head of the upper school stated that the graduating seniors’ photo for the yearbook was a tradition.  Plaintiff stated that she had seen several photos from years past where the students were on top of the monkey bars (see Stephenson v. City of New York, 19 N.Y.3d 1031, 1034, 954 N.Y.S.2d 782, 978 N.E.2d 1251 [2012]).  Moreover, a jury might reasonably conclude that it was foreseeable that the 11 seniors would climb on and around the monkey bars to replicate photos from prior years (see A.R. v. City of New York, 171 A.D.3d 589, 590, 98 N.Y.S.3d 182 [1st Dept. 2019]).

Chapin also failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that Schurz Park was not a foreseeably hazardous area.  This is particularly so given the condition of the monkey bars as described by plaintiff and the City's inspection reports (see Cruz v. City of New York, 183 A.D.3d 466, 467, 124 N.Y.S.3d 22 [1st Dept. 2020]).

An issue of fact was further presented concerning whether Chapin unreasonably increased the risks to its students by failing to supervise the event and leaving crucial decisions to the students themselves (see Traficenti v. Moore Catholic High School, 282 A.D.2d 216, 724 N.Y.S.2d 24 [1st Dept. 2001]).  Although plaintiff was 18 years old, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that the accident was caused, at least in part, by the conduct of the other students, who were unsupervised minors and who elected to climb on top of the monkey bars while plaintiff and others were standing underneath.

We have considered Chapin's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.