From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schlein v. White Plains City School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2002
292 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-02111

Submitted December 17, 2001.

March 5, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered January 30, 2001, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Steven R. Harris, New York, N.Y. (Gary R. Nitsberg of counsel), for respondents.

David K. Lieb, Center Moriches, N.Y. (Andrea L. Thompson of counsel), for appellant.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When the plaintiff was a seven-year-old student in the defendant White Plains City School District, she was injured during a mandatory physical education class conducted by the defendant Jeffrey Miller. She was retrieving an errantly-thrown volleyball and ran into an unpadded cinderblock wall in the gymnasium.

A school is not an insurer of the safety of its students, but rather, "is obligated to exercise such care over students in its charge that a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under comparable circumstances" (Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 279 A.D.2d 507, 508; see, Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49). The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as a matter of law (see, Shabot v. East Ramapo School Dist., 269 A.D.2d 587; see generally, Mirand v. City of New York, supra). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the care and supervision afforded by the defendants (see, CPLR 3212[b]; Mirand v. City of New York, supra). Further, the plaintiff also failed to present any expert testimony to show that the School District was obligated to provide padding on the gymnasium wall (see, Kazlow v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 411; Warech v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 203 A.D.2d 53, 54). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is not properly before this court, as she did not appeal from the order dated March 31, 2000 (see, CPLR 5515).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schlein v. White Plains City School Dist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 5, 2002
292 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Schlein v. White Plains City School Dist

Case Details

Full title:RONIT DANIELLE SCHLEIN, appellant, v. WHITE PLAINS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 5, 2002

Citations

292 A.D.2d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
738 N.Y.S.2d 597

Citing Cases

Parra v. Paint Co.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary…

Marucheau v. Suffolk County Community College

The plaintiff, a student at Suffolk County Community College, was injured during his elective course, a…