From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fraioli v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-04205.

Decided April 26, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), entered April 16, 2003, which granted the motion of the defendants Daniel Webster School and New Rochelle Board of Education for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Anthony J. Scarcella Associates, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (M. Sean Duffy of counsel), for appellant.

O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle Oleson, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Elizabeth Holmes of counsel), for respondents.

Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 8, 2000, the infant plaintiff, then a third-grade student at the respondent Daniel Webster School located in New Rochelle, allegedly was injured when he fell during a supervised gym class while participating in a parachute activity. The premises were owned by the respondent City of New Rochelle Board of Education.

A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent under comparable circumstances ( see Lawes v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 N.Y.2d 302, 305; Hoose v. Drumm, 281 N.Y. 54, 57-58; cf. Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49; Rodriguez v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 104 A.D.2d 978, 979). However, a school is not an insurer of its students' safety ( see Opalek v. West Islip Union Free School Dist., 1 A.D.3d 491; cf. Mirand v. City of New York, supra) and will only be held liable if the injury in question was foreseeable and proximately linked to a failure to supervise ( see Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 279 A.D.2d 507, 508).

The respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the infant plaintiff's injuries resulted from an accidental fall during an age-appropriate supervised activity and not from any negligence attributable to them ( see Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., supra).

In opposition, the plaintiff's conclusory and speculative submissions failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see Dremeaux v. St. Francis Cemetery, 303 A.D.2d 542, 543; Wallach v. American Home Prods. Corp., 300 A.D.2d 576, 577).

PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fraioli v. City of New Rochelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Fraioli v. City of New Rochelle

Case Details

Full title:DILLON FRAIOLI, ETC., appellant, v. CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE, defendant…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 26, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 559

Citing Cases

Scavelli v. Town of Carmel

Both the infant plaintiff and Maher testified that the accident occurred when they both ran toward the ball…

McLoughlin v. E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist.

The evidence demonstrates that there was adequate supervision at the lime of the accident and that the level…