From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paredes v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 4, 2012
101 A.D.3d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

Opinion

2012-12-4

Jesus PAREDES, an Infant Under the Age of Fourteen Years by His Mother and Natural Guardian Raquel NUNEZ, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, The Department of Education of the City of New York, Defendant–Appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for appellant. Sonkin & Fifer, New York (Howard Fifer of counsel), for respondents.



Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for appellant. Sonkin & Fifer, New York (Howard Fifer of counsel), for respondents.
SAXE, J.P., FRIEDMAN, ACOSTA, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered June 7, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Department of Education's (DOE) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

“It is well-settled that schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision” ( Brandy B. v. Eden Cent. School Dist., 15 N.Y.3d 297, 302, 907 N.Y.S.2d 735, 934 N.E.2d 304 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). “[A] teacher owes it to his [or her] charges to exercise such care of them as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances” ( Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 [1994] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Summary judgment should have been granted in this action where the infant plaintiff was injured in a spontaneous playground accident. Moreover, the DOE employee supervising the playground at the time of the accident testified that she instructed the students on how to properly ride the apparatus from which the infant plaintiff fell, and there is no indication that any type of focused, repetitive instruction would have prevented the accident ( cf. Hunter v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 19 N.Y.3d 1030, 954 N.Y.S.2d 1, 978 N.E.2d 593 [2012],affg. 95 A.D.3d 719, 719, 945 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept. 2012] ).


Summaries of

Paredes v. City of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Dec 4, 2012
101 A.D.3d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
Case details for

Paredes v. City of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:Jesus PAREDES, an Infant Under the Age of Fourteen Years by His Mother and…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 4, 2012

Citations

101 A.D.3d 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
955 N.Y.S.2d 317
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 8261

Citing Cases

Southern v. City of N.Y.

Moreover, infant plaintiff's two gym teachers jointly observed only half a class at a time, as the boys and…

Goldschmidt v. City of N.Y.

Moreover, where an accident occurs in so short a span of time that even the most intense supervision could…