G.A., etc., et al., appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Orlando Marrazzo, Jr., J.), dated June 30, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the motion of the defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Education which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The infant plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when he was assaulted by another student during a physical education class at Port Richmond High School.  The infant plaintiff, by his father and natural guardian and his father, individually, commenced this action against, among others, the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter together the defendants).  The defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.  In an order dated June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the motion.  The plaintiffs appeal.

“ ‘In determining whether the duty to provide adequate supervision has been breached in the context of injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury;  that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated’ ” (Nizen–Jacobellis v. Lindenhurst Union Free Sch. Dist., 191 A.D.3d 1007, 1007, 143 N.Y.S.3d 368, quoting Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263).  “Actual or constructive notice to the school of prior similar conduct generally is required, and an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence” (id. at 1007–1008, 143 N.Y.S.3d 368 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 126 A.D.3d 951, 952, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182).  Where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of the defendant is warranted (see M.X. v. City of New Rochelle, 218 A.D.3d 519, 521, 193 N.Y.S.3d 82;  Gonzalez v. South Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist., 176 A.D.3d 920, 921, 112 N.Y.S.3d 151).

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that their alleged inadequate supervision of the infant plaintiff and his classmates was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries.  The sudden and violent behavior of one of the students was not foreseeable based on any prior, similar conduct that would have indicated that more specific supervision was required (see Nizen–Jacobellis v. Lindenhurst Union Free Sch. Dist., 191 A.D.3d at 1007, 143 N.Y.S.3d 368).  Accordingly, the defendants could not reasonably have foreseen the student's conduct nor could any amount of supervision have prevented it (see M.X. v. City of New Rochelle, 218 A.D.3d at 521, 193 N.Y.S.3d 82;  Gonzalez v. South Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist., 176 A.D.3d at 921, 112 N.Y.S.3d 151).  In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

MALTESE, J.P., GENOVESI, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.