SAVASTANO v. PM AMUSEMENTS (2008)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), dated June 2, 2006, which granted the separate motions of the defendants PM Amusements and Yorktown Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

 The defendant Yorktown Central School District established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that it provided adequate supervision to its students and, in any event, that the level of supervision provided was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's accident (see Reuveni v. BECEC, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 367, 367-368, 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, 276, 751 N.Y.S.2d 300).   In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718;  Reuveni v. BECEC, Inc., 5 A.D.3d at 368, 771 N.Y.S.2d 912;  Weinblatt v. Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 303 A.D.2d at 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 766).

 The defendant PM Amusements also established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment.   First, it demonstrated that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition that caused the infant plaintiff's injury, and that it did not have any notice, actual or constructive, of that alleged dangerous condition (see Pisano v. Young Women's Christian Assn. of Brooklyn, 43 A.D.3d 814, 840 N.Y.S.2d 872;  Russo v. Valley Cent. School Dist., 33 A.D.3d 782, 783, 822 N.Y.S.2d 607;  cf. Vollmer v. Town of Wawayanda, 247 A.D.2d 610, 611, 669 N.Y.S.2d 226).   Second, it established that any breach of a duty of care it owed the infant plaintiff was not the proximate cause of his injury (see Reuveni v. BECEC, Inc., 5 A.D.3d at 368, 771 N.Y.S.2d 912;  Weinblatt v. Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 303 A.D.2d at 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 766).   In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d at 562-563, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718;  Gershman v. Habib, 37 A.D.3d 530, 828 N.Y.S.2d 903;  Russo v. Valley Cent. School Dist., 33 A.D.3d at 783, 822 N.Y.S.2d 607;  Reuveni v. BECEC, Inc., 5 A.D.3d at 368, 771 N.Y.S.2d 912;  Weinblatt v. Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 303 A.D.2d at 582, 756 N.Y.S.2d 766).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.