LEACOCK v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2009)

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered July 15, 2008, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant, City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action arising from a slip-and-fall accident by showing that the accident occurred on public school premises, and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the public schools (see Goldes v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 448, 449, 797 N.Y.S.2d 102;  Cruz v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d 250, 733 N.Y.S.2d 112;  Awad v. City of New York, 278 A.D.2d 441, 718 N.Y.S.2d 89;  Campbell v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 504, 505, 611 N.Y.S.2d 248), which fall under “the exclusive care, custody and control of the [New York City] Board of Education, an entity separate and distinct from the City” (Bleiberg v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 969, 971, 842 N.Y.S.2d 76;  see New York City Charter § 521;  Education Law § 2590-b[1][a];  Corzino v. City of New York, 56 A.D.3d 370, 371, 868 N.Y.S.2d 37;  Perez v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 378, 837 N.Y.S.2d 571;  Nacipucha v. City of New York, 18 Misc.3d 846, 853-854, 849 N.Y.S.2d 414).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.   Accordingly, summary judgment was properly awarded to the City since it cannot be held liable for the negligent maintenance of school property (see Goldes v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d at 449, 797 N.Y.S.2d 102;  Cruz v. City of New York, 288 A.D.2d at 250, 733 N.Y.S.2d 112;  Goldman v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 689, 732 N.Y.S.2d 78).

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.