JENNINGS v. OCEANSIDE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT (2001)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), dated March 9, 2000, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

 A school is not an insurer of the safety of its students (see, Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263;  Farrukh v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 440, 643 N.Y.S.2d 118).   Rather, a school is obligated to exercise such care over students in its charge that a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under comparable circumstances (see, Mirand v. City of New York, supra;  Ohman v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 300 N.Y. 306, 90 N.E.2d 474;  Ceglia v. Portledge Sch., 187 A.D.2d 550, 590 N.Y.S.2d 228). Under this standard of care, a school will be held liable only for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see, Mirand v. City of New York, supra;  Pratt v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 251 A.D.2d 949, 674 N.Y.S.2d 838;  Foster v. New Berlin Cent. School Dist., 246 A.D.2d 880, 667 N.Y.S.2d 994;  Gattyan v. Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 152 A.D.2d 650, 543 N.Y.S.2d 732).

 The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the infant plaintiff's injuries resulted from a sudden and unforeseeable act (see, Ascher v. Scarsdale School Dist., 267 A.D.2d 339, 700 N.Y.S.2d 210;  Malik v. Greater Johnstown Enlarged School Dist., 248 A.D.2d 774, 669 N.Y.S.2d 729;  Walsh v. City School Dist. of Albany, 237 A.D.2d 811, 654 N.Y.S.2d 859;  Tomlinson v. Board of Educ. of City of Elmira, 183 A.D.2d 1023, 583 N.Y.S.2d 664;  Hauser v. North Rockland Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 166 A.D.2d 553, 560 N.Y.S.2d 835), and not from any negligence attributable to the defendant.   In opposition, the plaintiffs' conclusory and speculative submissions failed to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issue of fact.   Accordingly, the defendant's motion should have been granted.