Opinion
2019–05106 Index No. 22954/14
01-27-2021
A.C., etc., plaintiff, v. BRENTWOOD UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., appellants.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for appellants.
Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y. (Kathleen D. Foley of counsel), for appellants.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Carmen Victoria St. George, J.), dated March 13, 2019. The order denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured during gym class when he fell off a zip line at the defendant Twin Pines Elementary School, which is located within the defendant Brentwood Union Free School District (hereinafter together the defendants). The infant plaintiff, by his mother and natural guardian, commenced this action, alleging that the defendants were negligent in their supervision of the infant plaintiff and in failing to instruct him on the safe use of the zip line. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal. We affirm.
A school district owes a duty to its students to exercise the same degree of care as would a parent of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances (see Lawes v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 N.Y.2d 302, 305, 266 N.Y.S.2d 364, 213 N.E.2d 667 ; Destiny S. v. John Quincy Adams Elementary Sch., 98 A.D.3d 1102, 1102, 951 N.Y.S.2d 217 ). "The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians" ( Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; see Tutaj v. Seaford Union Free Sch. Dist., 179 A.D.3d 968, 969, 117 N.Y.S.3d 297 ). The duty to provide adequate supervision includes the duty to instruct students in physical education classes as to the safe use of equipment (see Mei Kay Chan v. City of Yonkers, 34 A.D.3d 540, 541, 824 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; Merson v. Syosset Cent. School Dist., 286 A.D.2d 668, 668, 730 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; Darrow v. West Genesee Cent. School Dist., 41 A.D.2d 897, 897, 342 N.Y.S.2d 611 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants' own submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the infant plaintiff was adequately supervised and instructed on the safe use of the zip line prior to his fall (see Mei Kay Chan v. City of Yonkers, 34 A.D.3d at 541, 824 N.Y.S.2d 380 ; Merson v. Syosset Cent. School Dist., 286 A.D.2d at 668, 730 N.Y.S.2d 132 ). Accordingly, the defendants' motion was properly denied (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).
MASTRO, A.P.J., AUSTIN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.