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.
Neil R. Frei, etc., et al., appellants, v. Arlington Central School District, respondent, et al., defendants.
Argued-January 11, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated October 29, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Arlington Central School District which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Arlington Central School District (hereinafter the defendant) which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320). The defendant established, prima facie, that its alleged negligence in supervising the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the injury-producing event (see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650; Convey v. City of Rye School Dist., 271 A.D.2d 154, 159-160). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 563). The defendant also established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged defective condition of the object which caused the injury of the plaintiff Neil R. Frei (see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 837-838). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d at 563).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2009-11570 (Index No. 5209 /07)
Decided: February 08, 2011
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)