From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hedman v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1978
64 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Opinion

July 13, 1978

Appeal from the Monroe Supreme Court.

Present — Marsh, P.J., Moule, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed, without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Denman, J., not participating. Memorandum: The motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) was entertained on affidavits and was properly treated by Special Term as one for summary judgment for dismissal of the complaint under CPLR 3211 (subd [c]). Plaintiff alleges that she was injured while playing tennis on a tennis court at Franklin High School in the City of Rochester, that the injury resulted from a ball bouncing off from trash on the court and striking plaintiff in the eye, and that the trash was there by reason of negligent maintenance of the tennis courts by defendant city. Plaintiff showed that the title to this Franklin High School property is in the city. In support of its motion to dismiss the complaint the city shows, and it is undisputed, that this property, as is all city school property, is under the exclusive control of the Rochester City School District which is a separate legal entity from the defendant city (Matter of Divisich v Marshall, 281 N.Y. 170; Matter of Potter v Board of Educ., 43 A.D.2d 248; Santiago v Board of Educ., 41 A.D.2d 616). The city also alleges, without contradiction, that on September 10, 1973 when plaintiff was injured she was participating in a recreation program at Franklin High School on this tennis court under the supervision of an employee of the school district, and the city further alleges that it did not maintain or operate the tennis court at any time in 1973. Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof showing facts which if established upon a trial, would form a basis for holding the city liable for her injuries (see Koppers Co. v Empire Bituminous Prods., 35 A.D.2d 906, affd 30 N.Y.2d 609; Hartwig v Three F. Conservation Soc., 49 A.D.2d 678).


Summaries of

Hedman v. City of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 13, 1978
64 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)
Case details for

Hedman v. City of Rochester

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA HEDMAN, Respondent, v. CITY OF ROCHESTER, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 13, 1978

Citations

64 A.D.2d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978)

Citing Cases

Rochester City Sch. Dist. v. City of Rochester

To this precise point, the Fourth Department has recognized that the Petitioner Rochester City School…

Houston v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.

"While members of a Board of Education in a city perform tasks generally regarded as connected with local…