Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1998 |
| Citation | 249 A.D.2d 346,671 N.Y.S.2d 110 |
| Parties | , 125 Ed. Law Rep. 770, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 3360 Nicole Marie AMBROSIO, etc., et al., Appellants, v. SOUTH HUNTINGTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lysaght, Lysaght & Kramer, P.C., Lake Success (Joseph L. Decolator, of counsel), for appellants.
Devitt, Spellman, Barrett, Callahan, Leyden & Kenny, LLP, Smithtown (L. Kevin Sheridan, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and MILLER, PIZZUTO and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 28, 1997, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff, while a third-grade student at the defendant's school, was racing with her friends in the school playground when she tripped and fell against a glass window. The infant plaintiff's hand hit the glass "hard", and both her hand and arm went through the window, causing her to sustain injuries. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced this action against the defendant alleging, inter alia, that it had negligently failed to equip the window with safety glass. The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment upon the ground that there was no evidence that window was unsafe, or that the failure to install safety glass violated any applicable rule or regulation. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion, and we affirm.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the conclusory affidavit of its expert was insufficient to show that the subject window did not conform to relevant safety standards (see, Murphy v. Conner, 84 N.Y.2d 969, 972, 622 N.Y.S.2d 494, 646 N.E.2d 796; Beyda v. Helmsley Enterprises, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 479, 666 N.Y.S.2d 40; cf., Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 106-107, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52, 436 N.E.2d 502). Although the plaintiffs' expert claimed that the failure to use impact-resistant glass in school windows located near play areas violated a provision contained in the "Manual of Planning Standards" issued by the State University of New York, there is no evidence that these planning standards are reflective of generally-accepted architectural safety practices. Moreover, there is no proof that the subject provision of the planning manual applies to exterior glass...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diaz v. Ny Downtown Hospital
...standards in an industry will not suffice to raise an issue of fact as to a defendant's negligence. (See, Ambrosio v South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346, 347 [failure to comply with State University's Manual of Planning Standards did not raise issue of fact where no evi......
-
Horowitz v. 763 E. Assocs., LLC
...929 N.Y.S.2d 620 ; cf. Bradley v. Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 265 A.D.2d 283, 696 N.Y.S.2d 65 ; Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346, 671 N.Y.S.2d 110 ). However, in opposition, the plaintiffs' submissions, including expert affidavits, raised a triable issu......
-
Beyda v. Helmsley Enterprises, Inc.
...proper safety standards (see, e.g., Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52, 436 N.E.2d 502; Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346, 671 N.Y.S.2d 110). Moreover, the plaintiff's expert's opinion that there was too much "grit" on the floor, based upon h......
-
Karathanasis v. Eastchester Union Free Sch. Dist.
...A.D.3d 577, 774 N.Y.S.2d 815;Bradley v. Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 265 A.D.2d 283, 696 N.Y.S.2d 65;Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346, 671 N.Y.S.2d 110). Since the defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law i......
-
Chapter 15 Utilization of Industry Standards in New York Products Liability Litigation
...at § 3, pp. 3, 4; § 4, pp. 5, 6. [2853] Clarke v. New York City Transit Auth., 174 A.D.2d 268, 580 N.Y.S.2d 221 (1st Dep’t 1992). [2854] 249 A.D.2d 346, 671 N.Y.S.2d 110 (2d Dep’t 1998). [2855] 61 N.Y.2d 261, 473 N.Y.S.2d 378 (1984). [2856] Id. [2857] Id. [2858] Id. at 274–75. [2859] 56 N.Y......