M.P. v. Cent. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist.

174 A.D.3d 636

101 N.Y.S.3d 898 (Mem)

M.P., etc., et al., Respondents,

v.CENTRAL ISLIP UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

2019–00069

Index No. 30446/12

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued - April 29, 2019

July 10, 2019

Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Nicholas M. Cardascia and Glenn A. Kaminska of counsel), for appellant.

Leonard J. Tartamella (Jacobson & Schwartz, LLP, Jericho, N.Y. [Henry J. Cernitz ], of counsel), for respondents.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SHERI S. ROMAN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Central Islip Union Free School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Sanford Neil Berland, J.), dated October 2, 2018. The order denied the motion of the defendant Central Islip Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Central Islip Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The infant plaintiff, a kindergarten student at a school in the defendant Central Islip Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District), allegedly was injured when she was pushed into a wall by a fellow kindergarten student while they were lining up outside their classroom before the afternoon session. The infant plaintiff, by her mother, and the mother individually, commenced this action against, among others, the School District, asserting a cause of action to recover damages for negligent supervision. The School District moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The School District appeals.

"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 N.Y.2d 44, 49, 614 N.Y.S.2d 372, 637 N.E.2d 263 ; see R.T. v. Three Vil. Cent. Sch. Dist. , 153 A.D.3d 747, 747–748, 59 N.Y.S.3d 483 ; Mathis v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 126 A.D.3d 951, 953, 7 N.Y.S.3d 182 ). However, 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 the proximate cause of the injury and summary judgment in favor of a defendant charged with the duty of reasonable supervision is warranted (see Hinz v. Wantagh Union Free Sch. Dist. , 165 A.D.3d 1074, 1076, 86 N.Y.S.3d 140 ; S.M. v. Plainedge Union Free School Dist. , 162 A.D.3d 814, 816, 79 N.Y.S.3d 215 ; Duffy v. Long Beach City Sch. Dist. , 134 A.D.3d 761, 764, 22 N.Y.S.3d 88 ; Convey...