Cronin v. Middle Country Central Sch. Dist

6 Citing cases

  1. Sobti v. Lindenhurst School

    35 A.D.3d 439 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 16 times

    The plaintiffs alleged that the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff were the result of inadequate ground cover on the playground surface beneath the horizontal ladder. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that it maintained the playground in a reasonably safe condition ( see Swan v Town of Brookhaven, 32 AD3d 1012; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386; Banks v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 302 AD2d 341; Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 AD2d 355; Cronin v Middle Country Cent. School Dist., 267 AD2d 269). The nonmandatory United States Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines referred to by the plaintiffs and their other proof in opposition to the motion were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether inadequate ground cover on the day of the accident proximately caused the infant plaintiffs injuries ( see Swan v Town of Brookhaven, supra; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., supra; Washington v City of Yonkers, 293 AD2d 741; Merson v Syosset Cent. School Dist., 286 AD2d 668; cf. Gonzalez v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 298 AD2d 358; Marrione v Ficano Enters., 277 AD2d 291).

  2. Swan v. Town of Brook-Haven

    32 A.D.3d 1012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 57 times

    The plaintiffs alleged that the injuries sustained by Christopher were the result of inadequate ground cover on the playground surface beneath the slide and negligent supervision by school personnel. The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that they maintained the playground in a reasonably safe condition ( see Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386; Banks v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 302 AD2d 341, 341-342; Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 AD2d 355, 356; Cronin v Middle Country Cent. School Dist., 267 AD2d 269, 270). The nonmandatory United States Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether inadequate ground cover on the day of the accident proximately caused Christopher's injuries ( see Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., supra; Washington v City of Yonkers, 293 AD2d 741, 742; Merson v Syosset Cent. School Dist, 286 AD2d 668; cf. Gonzalez v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 298 AD2d 358, 359; Marrione v Ficano Enters., 277 AD2d 291, 292).

  3. Ciccone v. Bedford Central School District

    21 A.D.3d 437 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 65 times

    ngers posed by performing head blocks, the claim by the plaintiffs' expert that additional instruction might have prevented Antonio's injury constituted sheer speculation and was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether any alleged lack of instruction unreasonably increased the risk of injury ( see Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., supra). Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence that an alleged failure to prevent another player from moving Antonio after he fell proximately caused or contributed to his injury ( see Edelson v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 219 AD2d 614). Rather, the plaintiffs' sports specialist merely opined that another player's conduct may possibly have exacerbated Antonio's condition. Given the absence of any competent medical evidence that the post-collision actions of another player proximately caused or exacerbated the injury, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see Cronin v. Middle Country Cent. School Dist., 267 AD2d 269).

  4. Ficarra v. Security Mutual Insurance Co.

    303 A.D.2d 449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 1 times

    However, the Supreme Court erred in denying Security's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case. To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and a breach of such duty (see Cronin v. Middle Country Cent. School. Dist., 267 A.D.2d 269). The plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of a duty owed by Security to him in processing his policy application. The plaintiff chose to try his case against Security on a theory of negligence. He consented to the submission of a verdict sheet which, insofar as it concerned Security, was limited to the issue of whether Security was negligent.

  5. Thompson v. Maine-Endwell Cent. School Dist.

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 32200 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

    The court turns next to plaintiff's medical negligence cause of action. Plaintiff must establish that the alleged delays, if any, by Ms. Feketa and/or Nurse Pierce "[i]n diagnosis and/or treatment were a proximate or aggravating cause of the claimed injury [citation omitted]" ( Marchione v State of New York, 194 AD2d 851, 855 [3rd Dept 1993]; Cronin v Middle County Cent. School Dist., 267 AD2d 269, 270 [2nd Dept 1999]). Here, immediately after his fall at approximately 1:10 p.m., plaintiff indicated to his gym teacher, Ms. Feketa, that he would "walk it off" (Ex D, pp 24 27) and finished the remaining time in his eighth period gym class.

  6. Rivera v. Westbury Union Free School District

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 30774 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)

    The defense attorney notes the infant plaintiff specifically testified, at the time of the accident, one of the aides, Ms. Martinez, was right next to her when it happened, and the defense attorney points out three school aides supervised, in and around the playground equipment, the infant plaintiff's class and one other kindergarten class. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that it maintained the playground in a reasonably safe condition ( see Swan v Town of Brookhaven, 32 AD3d 1012 [2006]; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese ofRockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003]; Banks vFreeport Union Free School Dist., 302 AD2d 341 [2003]; Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 AD2d 355 [2001]; Cronin v Middle Country Cent.School Dist., 267 AD2d 269 [1999]). Sobti v. Lindenhurst School Dist., 35 A.D.3d 439, 825 N.Y.S.2d 251 (2nd Dept., 2006).