New York Civil Service Lawyer & Attorney : Kevin P. Sheerin : Serving New York City, Long Island, Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island

Rosenthal v Arlington Central School District

Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint against school for an alleged injury on school grounds. The infant plaintiff was allegedly injured while participating in a baseball game during gym class. The students were playing with a foam-like ball and a foam bat with a plastic handle. While waiting in line, plaintiff was struck in the nose by a bat that another student let go of while swinging. Plaintiff was in a designated safety zone surrounded by orange safety cones located 25 feet away from the batter.

A teacher’s duty is to supervise his or her student’s by exercising the same care as a parent would in similar circumstances. The defendant took reasonable and prudent measures to ensure the safety of the children engaged in this physical activity by providing students with foam equipment and having them wait in a safety zone until it was their turn to bat. The plaintiffs failed to establish any triable issues of fact. No evidence shows that the school district and supervising teachers failed to exercise the appropriate level of care nor that the safety precautions taken were inadequate.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Diana Hallock v Riverhead Central School District

Defendant appealed an order from Supreme Court denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained on a school bus and at school. The defendant established its entitlement to judgment by submitting evidence proving no actual or constructive notice or knowledge of alleged misconduct on the school bus and at the school. Plaintiffs failed to prove that school authorities had specific knowledge of the dangerous conduct with caused the injury.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the order and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Fernandez v. City of New York

Defendant, Rite Aid, moved for an order dismissing plaintiff’s slip and fall complaint, alleging that the City of New York was on notice of the broken sidewalk and should be responsible for fixing it.

Administrative Code of NYC states that the property owner is responsible for maintaining the sidewalk in a safe condition. In order for the city to be liable for a defective sidewalk, they must have caused and created the defective condition that caused the plaintiff’s accident. Rite Aid employed trial testimony of a supervisor for the NYC Department of Environmental Protection who stated that the condition of the sidewalk appeared to be a result of a fire hydrant malfunctioning or leaking.

Rite Aid failed to provide any evidence that definitively proves that the City is responsible for the alleged defect under the theory of cause and create. They also failed to establish the City’s affirmative negligence and that the condition alleged caused the sidewalk to immediately break and not simply erode over time. Also Rite Aid failed to demonstrate that the sidewalk in proximity to the fire hydrant falls within the special use exception.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the motion for summary judgment.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks