Opinion
2014-07-16
Janis COHEN, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent.
Newman, O'Malley & Epstein, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Lawrence Epstein of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
Newman, O'Malley & Epstein, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Lawrence Epstein of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated November 13, 2012, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, the City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint in this action arising from a slip-and-fall accident by showing that the accident occurred on public school premises, and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the public schools ( see Miner v. City of New York, 78 A.D.3d 669, 670, 911 N.Y.S.2d 109;Indar v. City of New York, 71 A.D.3d 635, 897 N.Y.S.2d 156;Leacock v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 827, 877 N.Y.S.2d 420), which are within “the exclusive care, custody and control of the [New York City] Board of Education, an entity separate and distinct from the City” ( Bleiberg v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 969, 971, 842 N.Y.S.2d 76;see N.Y. City Charter § 521; Education Law §§ 2554[4]; 2590–b[1][a]; McClain v. City of New York, 65 A.D.3d 1020, 884 N.Y.S.2d 865;Myers v. City of New York, 64 A.D.3d 546, 882 N.Y.S.2d 306;Leacock v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d at 827, 877 N.Y.S.2d 420;Corzino v. City of New York, 56 A.D.3d 370, 868 N.Y.S.2d 37;Perez v. City of New York, 41 A.D.3d 378, 837 N.Y.S.2d 571). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( cf. Bleiberg v. City of New York, 43 A.D.3d 969, 842 N.Y.S.2d 76). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, since it cannot be held liable for the negligent maintenance of school property ( see Leacock v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d at 827, 877 N.Y.S.2d 420;Goldes v. City of New York, 19 A.D.3d 448, 449, 797 N.Y.S.2d 102;Goldman v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 689, 689–690, 732 N.Y.S.2d 78). ENG, P.J., LEVENTHAL, LOTT and ROMAN, JJ., concur.