Opinion
2018-07129 Index No. 150764/15
09-18-2019
I. S., etc., et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents.
The Blash Firm, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Stacy N. Baden of counsel), for appellants. Georgia M. Pestana, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Jane L. Gordon and Melanie T. West of counsel), for respondents.
The Blash Firm, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Stacy N. Baden of counsel), for appellants.
Georgia M. Pestana, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Jane L. Gordon and Melanie T. West of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Thomas P. Aliotta, J.), dated April 20, 2018. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured when she fell from the monkey bars at her school playground. The infant plaintiff, by her mother, and her mother suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants, alleging, inter alia, negligent supervision of the infant plaintiff and negligent maintenance of the playground equipment. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the motion. The plaintiffs appeal.
The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the monkey bars and the ground covering below them were not defective and were maintained in a reasonably safe condition on the date of the accident (see Yuan Gao v. City of New York, 145 A.D.3d 939, 940, 43 N.Y.S.3d 493 ; Gray v. South Colonie Cent. Sch. Dist., 64 A.D.3d 1125, 1129, 883 N.Y.S.2d 647 ; Padden v. County of Suffolk, 52 A.D.3d 663, 664, 860 N.Y.S.2d 604 ; Banks v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 302 A.D.2d 341, 753 N.Y.S.2d 890 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants were negligent in their maintenance of the playground equipment. The defendants also demonstrated, prima facie, that they provided adequate supervision to the infant plaintiff at the time of the accident (see Perez v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist., 141 A.D.3d 577, 578, 36 N.Y.S.3d 159 ; Troiani v. White Plains City School Dist., 64 A.D.3d 701, 702, 882 N.Y.S.2d 519 ; Charles v. City of Yonkers, 103 A.D.3d 765, 766, 962 N.Y.S.2d 199 ; Berdecia v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d 354, 354–355, 735 N.Y.S.2d 554 ) and, in any event, that any alleged lack of supervision was not a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries (see Perez v. Comsewogue Sch. Dist., 141 A.D.3d at 578, 36 N.Y.S.3d 159 ; Troiani v. White Plains City School Dist., 64 A.D.3d at 702, 882 N.Y.S.2d 519 ; Berdecia v. City of New York, 289 A.D.2d at 355, 735 N.Y.S.2d 554 ). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants were negligent in their supervision of the infant plaintiff.
Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
MASTRO, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.