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.
Martin MACALINO, etc., et al., respondents, v. ELMONT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated December 9, 2004, 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.
“Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for the foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” (Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263; see Mitsel v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 278 A.D.2d 291, 292, 717 N.Y.S.2d 341). However, schools are not insurers of the students' safety, and are only obligated to exercise such care over students that a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under comparable circumstances (see Mirand v. City of New York, supra at 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263; Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 279 A.D.2d 507, 508, 719 N.Y.S.2d 271; Gattyan v. Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1, 152 A.D.2d 650, 651, 543 N.Y.S.2d 732).
The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it provided adequate supervision, and, in any event, that the level of supervision provided was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Reuveni v. BECEC, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 367, 771 N.Y.S.2d 912; Weinblatt v. Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 303 A.D.2d 581, 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 766; Davidson v. Sachem Cent. School Dist., 300 A.D.2d 276, 751 N.Y.S.2d 300; Lopez v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 A.D.2d 355, 356, 734 N.Y.S.2d 97).
In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to inadequate supervision and, if inadequate, whether the level of supervision provided was a proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 16, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)