From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rowe v. Board of Education of City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 2004
12 A.D.3d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-06420.

November 15, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), dated June 11, 2003, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A school's duty to adequately supervise a student is co-extensive with and concomitant to its physical custody of and control over the student ( see Pratt v. Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560; Ramo v. Serrano, 301 AD2d 640, 641; see also Mirand v. City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49-50). The record established that the plaintiff was not under the physical control and custody of the defendants at the time of the subject incident. Accordingly, under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Rowe v. Board of Education of City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 2004
12 A.D.3d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rowe v. Board of Education of City of New York

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER ROWE, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF NEW YORK et…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 2004

Citations

12 A.D.3d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
783 N.Y.S.2d 860

Citing Cases

Viola Morning v. Riverhead Central Sch. Dist

A school's duty to its students is co-extensive with the school's physical custody and control over them (…

L.L. v. The City of New York

tt v. City of New York, 230 A.D.2d 719 [2d Dept. 1996]), they are entitled to dismissal of the First and…