From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lovelace v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1996
232 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

October 21, 1996.

In a negligence action to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant St. Francis Prep, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 21, 1995, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Before: O'Brien, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Goldstein, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

"Schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" ( Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49). We conclude that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to her claim that inadequate supervision: by the appellant St. Francis Prep, was a proximate cause of injuries to the plaintiff's decedent.


Summaries of

Lovelace v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 1996
232 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Lovelace v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:PILAR LOVELACE et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 21, 1996

Citations

232 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
648 N.Y.S.2d 976

Citing Cases

Santos v. N.Y. City Dept. of Educ

Accordingly, the degree of supervision afforded by the appellant was reasonable and adequate under the…