Siegell v. Herricks Union Free School District

Decision Date10 May 2004
Docket Number2003-02892.
Citation7 A.D.3d 607,777 N.Y.S.2d 148,2004 NY Slip Op 03806
PartiesPAUL SIEGELL ET AL., Respondents-Appellants, v. HERRICKS UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, IRVING PERGAMENT, Respondent, ET AL., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof denying the motion of the defendant Herricks Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim insofar as asserted against it and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Irving Pergament, as administrator of the estate of Moshe Pergament, which was for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant Herricks Union Free School District, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Herricks Union Free School District, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

In 1993 the then-infant plaintiff, Paul Siegell (hereinafter the plaintiff), and the now-deceased defendant, Moshe Pergament, were students at Herricks High School. During a "frisbee relay race" in physical education class, the plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when Pergament ran into or pushed him from behind while they were going for the same frisbee. The plaintiff and his mother commenced this action against, among others, the Herricks Union Free School District (hereinafter the District) and Moshe Pergament. They asserted causes of action alleging negligent supervision against the District and alleging negligence and battery against Pergament. During the pendency of the action, Moshe Pergament died and was replaced as a defendant by his father, the defendant Irving Pergament, as administrator of his estate. After discovery, inter alia, the District moved and Irving Pergament cross-moved, for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the District's motion and granted the cross motion. We modify by granting the District's motion and denying that branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the fifth cause of action alleging battery against Moshe Pergament.

The Supreme Court should have granted the District's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claim insofar as asserted against it. "Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]; see Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384 [2003]). In addition, the plaintiff must prove that a school's negligence in supervising its students was a proximate cause of his or her injuries (see Mirand v City of New York, supra at 50; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., supra). "Where an accident occurs in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Naughright v. Weiss
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 18 Noviembre 2011
    ...(2) that was harmful or offensive, (3) with intent and (4) without the plaintiff's consent. Siegell v. Herricks Union Free Sch. Dist., 7 A.D.3d 607, 609, 777 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dep't 2004). With respect to the Karan Defendants, Naughright does not claim the Karan Defendants ever made contact ......
  • Thaw v. N. Shore Univ. Hosp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 Junio 2015
    ...made with intent, and offensive in nature” (Cerilli v. Kezis, 16 A.D.3d 363, 364, 790 N.Y.S.2d 714 ; see Siegell v. Herricks Union Free School Dist., 7 A.D.3d 607, 609, 777 N.Y.S.2d 148 ). “The intent required for battery is ‘intent to cause a bodily contact that a reasonable person would f......
  • Naughright v. Donna Karan Weiss, Urban Zen, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 8 Marzo 2012
    ...[to recover damages] for battery are bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature.” Siegell v. Herricks Union Free Sch. Dist., 7 A.D.3d 607, 609, 777 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dep't 2004) (internal citations omitted, bracketed text in original). In his motion to dismiss, Robbins present......
  • Scavelli v. Town of Carmel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 Agosto 2015
    ...70 A.D.3d 910, 895 N.Y.S.2d 184 ; Mayer v. Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 29 A.D.3d 653, 815 N.Y.S.2d 189 ; Siegall v. Herricks Union Free School Dist., 7 A.D.3d 607, 777 N.Y.S.2d 148 ; Opalek v. West Islip Union Free School Dist., 1 A.D.3d 491, 767 N.Y.S.2d 231 ). In opposition, the plaintiff......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT