K.B. v. City of N.Y.

6 Citing cases

  1. E.W. v. City of N.Y.

    179 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 12 times

    Additionally, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging negligent supervision. Although schools have a duty to provide supervision to ensure the safety of those in their charge, schools will be held liable only for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (seeMirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; K.B. v. City of New York, 166 A.D.3d 744, 745, 88 N.Y.S.3d 549 ). When an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it, lack of supervision is not the proximate cause of the injury (seeK.B. v. City of New York, 166 A.D.3d at 745, 88 N.Y.S.3d 549 ).

  2. Congero v. City of Glen Cove

    193 A.D.3d 679 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 6 times

    The defendant also established that the notice of claim failed to allege that any exception to the prior written notice rule applied here (seeSteins v. Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 127 A.D.3d 957, 959, 7 N.Y.S.3d 419 ). The plaintiffs' evidence in opposition concerning its improper assertion of the affirmative negligence exception to the prior written notice rule (seeMethal v. City of New York, 116 A.D.3d 743, 744, 984 N.Y.S.2d 71 ) failed to raise a triable issue of fact (seeK.B. v. City of New York, 166 A.D.3d 744, 745–746, 88 N.Y.S.3d 549 ). The defendant was therefore entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint (seeO'Connor v. Huntington U.F.S.D., 87 A.D.3d 571, 571–572, 929 N.Y.S.2d 743 ).

  3. Sanchez v. City of New York

    190 A.D.3d 999 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    The plaintiff appeals. The Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the City defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the City was properly granted, since the City cannot be held liable for torts committed by the DOE (seeK.B. v. City of New York, 166 A.D.3d 744, 745, 88 N.Y.S.3d 549 ; Matter ofAllende v. City of New York, 69 A.D.3d 931, 932, 894 N.Y.S.2d 472 ). With respect to the alleged liability of the DOE and Perez, the defendants established, prima facie, that the alarm the plaintiff heard that afternoon was the security alarm, which had been triggered after Perez was no longer in the building and after he had traveled several blocks away.

  4. Hadidi v. City of New York

    2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 1909 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In this regard, the plaintiffs' claim of alleged design defects in the playground equipment was improperly advanced for the first time in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (see K.B. v City of New York, 166 AD3d 744, 745-746; Hunter-Lawson v City of New York, 137 AD3d 864, 864-865; Semprini v Village of Southampton, 48 AD3d 543, 544). In any event, the expert opinion evidence submitted by the plaintiffs did not warrant the denial of the motion under the circumstances presented.

  5. Weinstein v. Cnty. of Nassau

    180 A.D.3d 730 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 14 times

    In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the City received prior written notice of the alleged condition, or whether it created the alleged condition through an affirmative act of negligence which immediately resulted in the existence of the defect (seeTaustine v. Incorporated Vil. of Lindenhurst, 158 A.D.3d 785, 786, 71 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; Beiner v. Village of Scarsdale, 149 A.D.3d 679, 680–681, 51 N.Y.S.3d 578 ; Pipitone v. Mineola Realty Assoc., 134 A.D.3d 918, 918–919, 22 N.Y.S.3d 125 ). The plaintiff's allegation that the City was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting in the subject area, which was improperly raised for the first time in his bill of particulars nearly three years after the accident, does not raise a triable issue of fact to defeat the City's motion for summary judgment (seeK.B. v. City of New York, 166 A.D.3d 744, 745–746, 88 N.Y.S.3d 549 ; Semprini v. Village of Southampton, 48 A.D.3d 543, 544, 852 N.Y.S.2d 208 ). The plaintiff did not assert that theory of liability in the notice of claim or the complaint, and the plaintiff never sought leave to amend the notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e.

  6. Y.F. v. Comsewogue Union Free Sch. Dist.

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 33394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    Further, the District has demonstrated that any alleged inadequate supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident (see J.H. v City of New York, 170 AD3d 816, 93 NYS3d 896 [2d Dept 2019]; K.B. v City of New York, 166 AD 3d 744, 88 NYS3d 549 [2d Dept 2018]; Hinz vWantagh Union Free Sch. Dist., supra; Goldschmidt v City of New York, 123 AD3d 1087, 1 NYS3d 204 [2d Dept 2014]). The District's submissions established that the incident occurred so quickly that it could not have been prevented by any reasonable degree of supervision (see M.P. v Central Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 174 AD3d 636, 101 NYS3d 898 [2d Dept 2019]; C.M. v Gasiorowski, 173 AD3d 1156, 102 NYS3d 681 [2d Dept 2019]; Scavelli v Town of Carmel, 131 AD3d 688, 15 NYS3d 214 [2d Dept 2015];Reardon v Carle Place Union Free Sch. Dist., 27 AD3d 635, 813 NYS2d 150 [2d Dept 2006]). Infant plaintiff acknowledges that the action of N.M. occurred quickly and without warning (see K.J. v City of New York, supra).