| Dwyer v Diocese of Rockville Ctr. |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08406 [45 AD3d 527] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Christopher James Dwyer et al., Appellants, v Diocese ofRockville Centre, Respondent, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Mulholland, Minion & Roe, Williston Park, N.Y. (Brian Davey, Ronald J. Morelli, andSusan B. Boland of counsel), for respondent St. Bernard's Roman Catholic Church.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), datedMay 5, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendant St. Bernard's Roman Catholic Church forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff Christopher James Dwyer, a high school student, was injured while playing"spring league basketball" in the gymnasium of the school operated by the defendant St.Bernard's Roman Catholic Church (hereinafter the defendant), when his hand struck a pane ofglass in a door and caused the pane to shatter. Thereafter, Christopher's mother, the plaintiffHelena Dwyer, commenced the instant action on behalf of herself and Christopher, alleging, interalia, that the defendant was negligent in failing to install "safety glass" in the door, and that thedefendant's negligence in this regard was the proximate cause of the accident. According to theplaintiffs' engineering expert, safety glass prevents injury because of its ability to withstandpressure and its tendency, if broken, not to form large sharp edges, which can result in injury.The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted againstit, maintaining that the [*2]glass that was used in the door did notconstitute a defective condition.
The defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bysubmitting evidence that the subject door fully complied with all applicable building codes thatwere in effect at the time that the school was built (see Bradley v Smithtown Cent. SchoolDist., 265 AD2d 283 [1999]; cf.Hassan-Willis v St. Gerard's School, 6 AD3d 577 [2004]). The evidence submitted bythe plaintiffs in opposition to the motion, including the affidavit of their engineering expert, wasinsufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Lifson, J.P., Dillon,Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.