B.T. v. Bethpage Union Free Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 05 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 600866/16,2018–01146 |
| Citation | 103 N.Y.S.3d 99,173 A.D.3d 806 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | B.T., etc., et al., Respondents, v. BETHPAGE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant. |
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska, New York of counsel), for appellant.
Sunshine Isaacson & Hecht, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. (Jeffrey A. Sunshine, Lake Success of counsel), for respondents.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On April 21, 2015, the infant plaintiff and her classmates, who were then in the eighth grade, were instructed by their gym teacher to run around the perimeter of their school building. The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured, when, during the course of the run, she attempted to jump over a chain suspended between two poles, and she tripped and fell. The infant plaintiff, by her mother and natural guardian, and her mother suing individually, commenced this personal injury action against the defendant, Bethpage Union Free School District (hereinafter the school district).
The infant plaintiff testified at her deposition that the gym teacher did not instruct her not to jump over anything, and that approximately 20 students jumped over the chain before she attempted to do so. She initially did not know what the other students were jumping over, and she realized that they were jumping over the chain when she was approximately five feet away from it. The infant plaintiff was still jogging at that point. She did not see the chain until she was very close to it because the chain "blend[ed] in." The gym teacher testified at his deposition that the students usually ran on a grassy area around the perimeter of a field. On the day of the accident, however, he instructed the infant plaintiff and her classmates to run around the perimeter of the school building because the grassy area was too wet and muddy. He had never before instructed that class to run around the perimeter of the building. The gym teacher also testified that he instructed the students to avoid the chain, that he ran behind the students, and that, when he reached the chain, he observed students running around it.
The school district moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending, inter alia, that its supervision of the infant plaintiff was adequate and proper, and that any alleged inadequacy in supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries because the accident occurred in such a short span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it. In an order entered December 20, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the school district's motion. The school district appeals.
"While a school district is not an insurer of the safety of its students, since it cannot reasonably be expected to continuously supervise and control all of their movements and activities, it has a duty to adequately supervise the students in its charge and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" ( Hinz v. Wantagh Union Free Sch. Dist. , 165...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chen v. City of N.Y.
...could not have prevented it, any lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury" ( B.T. v. Bethpage Union Free Sch. Dist., 173 A.D.3d 806, 807, 103 N.Y.S.3d 99 [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[T]here may be more than one proximate cause of an accident" and "[g]enerally, ......
-
Beraun Soller v. Dahan
...49, 618 N.E.2d 82 ). Here, as supplemented by the plaintiff's affidavit, the complaint states cognizable causes of action pursuant to 173 A.D.3d 806 Labor Law § 200 and to recover damages for common-law negligence. The plaintiff averred that on the day of the accident, Rapaport, whom he kne......
-
U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Humphrey
...the defendant). The defendant moved, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL 1301(3) and CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint on the 103 N.Y.S.3d 99 ground that there was another action pending to foreclose upon the same mortgage. In support of the motion, the defendant submitted evidence that in......
-
L. S. v. Massapequa Union Free Sch. Dist.
...or that a lack of adequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries (see B.T. v. Bethpage Union Free Sch. Dist., 173 A.D.3d 806, 103 N.Y.S.3d 99 ; SM v. Plainedge Union Free Sch. Dist., 162 A.D.3d at 816, 79 N.Y.S.3d 215 ; DiGiacomo v. Town of Babylon, 124 A.......