J.H. v. City of New YorkJ.H. v. City of New York
Nwokoro & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Chukwuemeka Nwokoro of counsel), for appellants.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Devin Slack and Melanie T. West of counsel; Donald J. Butterworth on the brief), for respondents.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Katherine A. Levine, J.), dated June 16, 2017. The order granted the motion of the defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Education for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and denied the plaintiff‘s cross motion pursuant to
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On January 20, 2012, the infant plaintiff, a seventh-grade student at John Jay Secondary School for Law in Brooklyn, was waiting in line in the cafeteria when he placed his right hand out an open window and a fellow student at the school closed the window on his hand, severing the tip of his right index finger. The infant plaintiff, by his mother and natural guardian, and his mother suing derivatively, commenced this action against, among others, the defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Education (hereinafter together the City defendants), alleging negligent supervision. The City defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiffs cross-moved pursuant to
“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). Even if there is a triable issue of fact as to the adequacy of supervision, “liability for any such negligent supervision does not lie absent a showing that it constitutes a proximate cause of the injury sustained” (Mayer v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., 29 AD3d 653, 654, quoting Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 AD2d 355, 356; see Siegell v Herricks Union Free School Dist., 7 AD3d 607, 608-609). Where 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 a proximate cause of the injury (see Guerriero v Sewanhaka Cent. High Sch. Dist., 150 AD3d 831, 833; Tanenbaum v Minnesauke Elementary School, 73 AD3d 743, 744; Convey v City of Rye School Dist., 271 AD2d 154, 160).
Here, the City defendants met their prima facie burden of
We also agree with the Supreme Court‘s determination to deny the plaintiffs’ cross motion pursuant to
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court