Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christopher FLORES, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered January 8, 2008, which, in this action for personal injuries sustained when infant plaintiff fell against a hot radiator inside a school, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Dismissal of the complaint was appropriate since defendant is not a proper party to the action. As we have held, the 2002 amendments to the Education Law (L. 2002, ch. 91) do not provide a basis to hold defendant liable for the personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff (see Corzino v. City of New York, 56 A.D.3d 370, 868 N.Y.S.2d 37 [2008]; Perez v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 378, 837 N.Y.S.2d 571 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 708, 859 N.Y.S.2d 393, 889 N.E.2d 80 [2008] ).
The record fails to support plaintiffs' contention that defendant should be equitably estopped from claiming it is not the proper party defendant. Although defendant's answer to the complaint admitted owning the school building, it also, inter alia, denied plaintiffs' specific allegations that defendant runs or operates the Department of Education, or that it operates the New York City public school system “through the Department of Education,” as well as denied that it operated, maintained, or managed the school at issue, or that it owned and operated the school “through the Department of Education.” The motion court properly found that plaintiffs failed to make the requisite showing that they changed their position to their detriment or prejudice as a result of relying upon defendant's alleged wrongful conduct (see Delacruz v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 45 A.D.3d 482, 846 N.Y.S.2d 160 [2007]; Luka v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 323, 325, 474 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1984], affd. 63 N.Y.2d 667, 479 N.Y.S.2d 524, 468 N.E.2d 706 [1984] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments, including that we reconsider our decision in Perez, and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 14, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)