Crawford v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2012 |
| Citation | 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00746,91 A.D.3d 899,937 N.Y.S.2d 626 |
| Parties | Georgina CRAWFORD, etc., appellant, v. SMITHTOWN CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent, et al., defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Salenger Sack Kimmel & Bavaro, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael F. Schwartz of counsel), for appellant.
Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondent and defendant Accompsett Elementary School.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated November 29, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant Smithtown Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
The plaintiff's infant daughter allegedly sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell over a rock or a piece of asphalt in the schoolyard of her elementary school during her lunch recess. The defendant Smithtown Central School District (hereinafter the defendant) established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition which proximately caused the accident ( see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court properly declined to consider the plaintiff's new theory of liability raised for the first time in opposition to the motion in light of the plaintiff's protracted delay in presenting it ( see Horn v. Hires, 84 A.D.3d 1025, 924 N.Y.S.2d 411; Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 A.D.3d 798, 839 N.Y.S.2d 162).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Matos v. Schwartz
-
Hervas v. LLSJ Realty Corp.
...she is precluded from raising it now. Wong proffers Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320 [1986] and Crawford v. Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 91 A.D.3d 899 [2d Dept. 2012] ), as support for its position that plaintiff cannot now raise, for the first time, in response to his motion, a......
-
Chengri v. Choi
...to demonstrate a potentially meritorious opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment (see Crawford v. Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 91 A.D.3d 899, 900, 937 N.Y.S.2d 626 ; Horn v. Hires, 84 A.D.3d 1025, 1026, 924 N.Y.S.2d 411 ; Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54, 61, 866 N.Y.S.2d 3......
-
Schwaber v. Schwaber
...motion for a downward modification of his child support and maintenance obligations set forth in a settlement agreement which was [937 N.Y.S.2d 626] incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that his loss of employment const......