Opinion
2003-06870.
Decided April 19, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated June 30, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Murphy Higgins, LLP, New Rochelle, N.Y. (John P. Murphy and Richard S. Kaye of counsel), for appellant.
Avrohom Becker (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [Brian J. Isaac] of counsel), for respondents.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for the injuries the infant plaintiff sustained to her left hand when she pushed open a wooden door at the defendant school, and her hand slid and went through the pane of glass in the door.
The defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' negligent supervision claim by establishing that its level of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident ( see Weinblatt v. Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 303 A.D.2d 581; Lopez v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 A.D.2d 355). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
Furthermore, the defendant demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claim that it was negligent in its ownership and maintenance of the door by submitting evidence that the door fully complied with all applicable City and State building codes at the time of the accident, and that it had no notice of any alleged defective condition in the door ( see Bradley v. Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 265 A.D.2d 283; Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346).
The plaintiffs failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the school was negligent in failing to use safety glass in the door. The plaintiffs' expert affidavit was conclusory and unsubstantiated and insufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see Cervone v. Tuzzolo, 291 A.D.2d 426; Geddes v. Crown Equip. Corp., 273 A.D.2d 904; Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free School Dist., supra).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion.
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.