Opinion
2015-05-27
Bianca BUTERA, etc., et al., respondents, v. VILLAGE OF BELLPORT, appellant.
Siler & Ingber, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Maria Nanis of counsel), for appellant. Edmond C. Chakmakian, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Anne Marie Caradonna of counsel), for respondents.
Siler & Ingber, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Maria Nanis of counsel), for appellant.Edmond C. Chakmakian, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Anne Marie Caradonna of counsel), for respondents.
, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated June 2, 2014, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The infant plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she was attacked by fellow campers at a summer camp run by the defendant. The infant plaintiff alleged that the attack lasted for approximately five minutes before a camp counselor, who had been in the vicinity since the attack began, came to her assistance. Subsequently, the infant plaintiff, and her mother suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that its employees adequately supervised the infant plaintiff. The Supreme Court denied the motion.
Schools and camps have a duty to provide supervision to ensure the safety of those in their charge, and are liable for foreseeable injuries proximately caused by the absence of adequate supervision ( see Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263; DiGiacomo v. Town of Babylon, 124 A.D.3d 828, 2 N.Y.S.3d 548; Harris v. Five Point Mission–Camp Olmstedt, 73 A.D.3d 1127, 1128, 901 N.Y.S.2d 678). Here, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that its employees provided adequate supervision. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant's employees were presented with a potentially dangerous situation and failed to take “energetic steps to intervene” in time to prevent campers from injuring another ( Lawes v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 N.Y.2d 302, 305, 266 N.Y.S.2d 364, 213 N.E.2d 667; see Buchholz v. Patchogue–Medford School Dist., 88 A.D.3d 843, 845, 931 N.Y.S.2d 113; McLeod v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 907, 908, 822 N.Y.S.2d 562; Siller v. Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 18 A.D.3d 532, 533, 795 N.Y.S.2d 605). Since the defendant failed to meet its initial burden as the movant, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' opposition papers ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 852, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.