MICCIO v. BAY SHORE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

John Vincent MICCIO, etc., et al., Appellants, v. BAY SHORE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

Decided: December 31, 2001

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, and BARRY A. COZIER, JJ. Richard T. Sinrod (Judith Ellen Stone, Merrick, N.Y., of counsel), for appellants. Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Garden City, N.Y. (Christine Gasser of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered October 17, 2000, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff, John Vincent Miccio (hereinafter Miccio), was a student in a high school located within the Bay Shore Union Free School District (hereinafter the respondent).   On June 18, 1996, after Miccio finished a final examination, he went to play basketball on the outdoor court at the high school.   While Miccio was on the court, another student assaulted him.   Several days earlier, that same student allegedly stole property from Miccio and threatened him with a knife.   The plaintiffs commenced this action against the respondent to recover damages allegedly arising from the injuries sustained by Miccio based on its alleged negligent supervision and inadequate security as to the June 18, 1996, incident.

The Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   The respondent made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.   As to the allegation of negligent supervision, the respondent demonstrated that it did not have “any actual knowledge constituting ‘notice of a particular danger at a particular time’ ” (Schlecker v. Connetquot Cent. School Dist. of Islip, 150 A.D.2d 548, 549, 541 N.Y.S.2d 127, quoting Lawes v. Board of Educ., 16 N.Y.2d 302, 306, 266 N.Y.S.2d 364, 213 N.E.2d 667).   As to the allegation of inadequate security, the respondent demonstrated that no special duty of protection existed (see, Varghese v. Sewanhaka Cent. High School Dist., 260 A.D.2d 573, 688 N.Y.S.2d 643;  Edwards v. City of Mount Vernon, 230 A.D.2d 821, 646 N.Y.S.2d 556;  Dickerson v. City of New York, 258 A.D.2d 433, 684 N.Y.S.2d 584).   In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard