Opinion
2001-04040
Argued — May 23, 2002.
June 25, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), entered March 21, 2001, which granted the motion of defendant Smithtown Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Silberstein, Awad Miklos, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph P. Awad and Paul N. Nadler of counsel), for appellants.
Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Frederick B. Simpson and Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondent.
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A school is not an insurer of the safety of its students (see Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49). Rather, a school is obligated to exercise such care over students in its charge that a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under comparable circumstances (id.).
The defendant Smithtown Central School District demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the infant plaintiff was adequately supervised and instructed (see Berdecia v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 354). The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to show the existence of a triable question of fact (see Taylor-Warner Corp. v. Minskoff, 167 A.D.2d 382). The plaintiffs' conclusory and speculative submissions failed to meet that burden (see Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School District, 279 A.D.2d 507, 508).
FLORIO, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.