Opinion
2014-02-5
Abby Von OHLEN, etc., et al., appellants, v. EAST MEADOW UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, respondent, et al., defendant.
Matthew A. Sosnik (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for appellants. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for respondent.
Matthew A. Sosnik (Sweetbaum & Sweetbaum, Lake Success, N.Y. [Marshall D. Sweetbaum], of counsel), for appellants. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K.Murphy, J.), entered September 24, 2012, which granted the motion of the defendant East Meadow Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On September 30, 2009, the infant plaintiff, a first-grade student, allegedly was injured while playing on a ring apparatus at the defendant McVey Elementary School (hereinafter the school). The infant plaintiff, by her mother, and her mother individually, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries against the school and the East Meadow Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District).
In opposition to the School District's prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiffs submitted the affidavit and report of their purported expert, there was no showing that the purported expert had any specialized knowledge, experience, training, or education regarding playground equipment so as to qualify him to render an opinion in this area ( see Y.H. v. Town of Ossining, 99 A.D.3d 760, 762, 952 N.Y.S.2d 579). Furthermore, the expert's opinions were speculative and conclusory ( see Rivas–Chirino v. Wildlife Conservation Socy., 64 A.D.3d 556, 558, 883 N.Y.S.2d 552). Additionally, the plaintiffs' reliance on the handbook of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission was inadequate to raise a triable issue of fact as to the School District's negligence, since the standards promulgated by that agency are not mandatory but, rather, are merely suggested guidelines ( see Miller v. Kings Park Cent. School Dist., 54 A.D.3d 314, 315, 863 N.Y.S.2d 232; Soldano v. Bayport–Blue Point Union Free School Dist., 29 A.D.3d 891, 815 N.Y.S.2d 712; Pinzon v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 680, 681, 602 N.Y.S.2d 909).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination, are without merit, or are not properly before this Court.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the School District's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.