Opinion
2015–11914 Index No. 37615/10
08-15-2018
Edward GILHOOLY, appellant, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, respondent, et al., defendant.
Ferro, Kuba, Mangano, Sklyar, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Rebecca Fortney and Kenneth E. Mangano of counsel), for appellant. Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for respondent.
Ferro, Kuba, Mangano, Sklyar, P.C., Hauppauge, N.Y. (Rebecca Fortney and Kenneth E. Mangano of counsel), for appellant.
Dennis M. Brown, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Christopher A. Jeffreys of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, HECTOR D. LASALLE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Daniel Martin, J.), dated October 5, 2015. The order granted the motion of the defendant County of Suffolk for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was an inmate at a minimum security correctional facility and sustained injuries when a fellow inmate assaulted him. He commenced this action to recover damages for personal injures, alleging negligent supervision. The defendant County of Suffolk moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
The County owes a duty of care to safeguard inmates from attacks by fellow inmates, but it is not an insurer of inmate safety (see Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d 247, 252–253, 754 N.Y.S.2d 621, 784 N.E.2d 675 ; Barnette v. City of New York, 96 A.D.3d 700, 701, 945 N.Y.S.2d 749 ). Its duty is limited to providing reasonable care to protect inmates from risks of harm that are reasonably foreseeable (see Sanchez v. State of New York, 99 N.Y.2d at 253, 754 N.Y.S.2d 621, 784 N.E.2d 675 ; Iannelli v. County of Nassau, 156 A.D.3d 767, 768, 68 N.Y.S.3d 97 ; Melvin v. State of New York, 101 A.D.3d 1654, 1654–1655, 956 N.Y.S.2d 376 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant the County's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The County established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the assault upon the plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see McAllister v. City of New York, 159 A.D.3d 887, 888, 74 N.Y.S.3d 54 ; cf. Adeleke v. County of Suffolk, 156 A.D.3d 748, 749, 68 N.Y.S.3d 108 ).
RIVERA, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.