From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

B.K. v. Meadow Drive Sch.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 6, 2019
170 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017–12624 2018–02274 Index No. 11787/14

03-06-2019

B.K., etc., et al., Appellants, v. MEADOW DRIVE SCHOOL, et al., Respondents.

Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for appellants. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for respondents.


Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Stephen C. Glasser of counsel), for appellants.

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647 ). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1] ).

On January 14, 2014, the infant plaintiff, a student at the defendant Meadow Drive School, which is part of the defendant Mineola Union Free School District (hereinafter together the defendants), allegedly was injured when a classmate slammed a bathroom door on her thumb. The infant plaintiff, by her mother and natural guardian, and her mother suing derivatively, commenced this action alleging that the defendants were negligent in their maintenance of the premises and in their supervision of the infant plaintiff. After joinder of issue, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion and subsequently entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs appeal.

The defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the premises liability cause of action by submitting evidence demonstrating that the bathroom door at issue was not in a defective or dangerous condition at the time of the alleged accident (see Witkowski v. Island Trees Pub. Lib., 125 A.D.3d 768, 769, 4 N.Y.S.3d 65 ; Rant v. Locust Val. High Sch., 123 A.D.3d 686, 687, 997 N.Y.S.2d 695 ; Donnelly v. St. Agnes Cathedral Sch., 106 A.D.3d 773, 774, 964 N.Y.S.2d 262 ; Lezama v. 34–15 Parsons Blvd, LLC, 16 A.D.3d 560, 792 N.Y.S.2d 123 ; Przybyszewski v. Wonder Works Constr., 303 A.D.2d 482, 483, 755 N.Y.S.2d 435 ; see also O'Brien v. Sayville Union Free School Dist., 87 A.D.3d 569, 570, 928 N.Y.S.2d 85 ; Fontana v. R.H.C. Dev., LLC, 69 A.D.3d 561, 562, 892 N.Y.S.2d 504 ; DeCarlo v. Village of Dobbs Ferry, 36 A.D.3d 749, 750, 828 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; Walsh v. City School Dist. of Albany, 237 A.D.2d 811, 812, 654 N.Y.S.2d 859 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Donnelly v. St. Agnes Cathedral Sch., 106 A.D.3d at 774, 964 N.Y.S.2d 262 ).

The defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligent supervision cause of action by submitting evidence establishing that the defendants adequately supervised the infant plaintiff (see Gilman v. Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist., 106 A.D.3d 952, 966 N.Y.S.2d 460 ; Wagner v. Oneonta School Dist., 68 A.D.3d 1516, 1517, 892 N.Y.S.2d 250 ; Walsh v. City School Dist. of Albany, 237 A.D.2d at 812, 654 N.Y.S.2d 859 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ).

The plaintiffs' remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

MASTRO, J.P., BALKIN, LASALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

B.K. v. Meadow Drive Sch.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Mar 6, 2019
170 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

B.K. v. Meadow Drive Sch.

Case Details

Full title:B.K., etc., et al., Appellants, v. MEADOW DRIVE SCHOOL, et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 6, 2019

Citations

170 A.D.3d 696 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
93 N.Y.S.3d 595

Citing Cases

G.A. v. Garden City Union Free Sch. Dist.

However, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary…

G. A. v. Garden City Union Free Sch. Dist.

However, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary…