| Fotiadis v City of New York |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01915 [49 AD3d 499] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Anthony Fotiadis et al., Appellants, v City of New York etal., Defendants, and Samuel Field YM and YWHA, Respondent. |
—[*1] Wenick & Finger, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Frank J. Wenick and Carol Lee Chevalier ofcounsel), for respondent.
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, Queens County (Elliot, J.), enteredNovember 8, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Samuel Field YM andYWHA which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
After his dismissal from middle school on April 16, 2004, the infant plaintiff disregarded hismother's instructions to attend the after-school program run by the defendant Samuel Field YMand YWHA (hereinafter the Y) and went directly to a park, where he fell from a swing andfractured his right leg.
A school's duty to adequately supervise a student is "coextensive" with its physical custodyof and control over the student (Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d 554, 560 [1976]; see Chalen v Glen Cove School Dist.,29 AD3d 508, 509 [2006]; Ramo v Serrano, 301 AD2d 640 [2003]; Bowers vCity of New York, 294 AD2d 526 [2002]). The Y established its entitlement to summaryjudgment by demonstrating that the infant plaintiff was injured when he was beyond the "orbit"of its authority (see Pratt v Robinson, 39 NY2d at 560), and that the Y's failure to notifythe infant's mother that the infant plaintiff was not attending the after-school program was not theproximate cause of his injuries (see generally [*2]Derdiarian vFelix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triableissue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the Y's motionwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it (see Chalen v Glen Cove School Dist.,29 AD3d 508 [2006]; Ramo v Serrano, 301 AD2d 640 [2003]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon andBelen, JJ., concur.