| Leacock v City of New York |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03139 [61 AD3d 827] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Stefan Leacock, Appellant, v City of New York,Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. X. Hart and DrakeA. Colley of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), entered July 15, 2008, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as amatter of law in this action arising from a slip-and-fall accident by showing that the accidentoccurred on public school premises, and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the publicschools (see Goldes v City of NewYork, 19 AD3d 448, 449 [2005]; Cruz v City of New York, 288 AD2d 250[2001]; Awad v City of New York, 278 AD2d 441 [2000]; Campbell v City of NewYork, 203 AD2d 504, 505 [1994]), which fall under "the exclusive care, custody and controlof the [New York City] Board of Education, an entity separate and distinct from the City" (Bleiberg v City of New York, 43AD3d 969, 971 [2007]; see NY City Charter § 521; Education Law §2590-b [1] [a]; Corzino v City of NewYork, 56 AD3d 370, 371 [2008]; Perez v City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [2007]; Nacipucha v City of New York, 18Misc 3d 846, 853-854 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue offact. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly awarded to the City since it cannot be heldliable for the negligent maintenance of school property (see Goldes v City of New York,19 AD3d at 449; Cruz v City of New York, 288 AD2d at 250; Goldman v Cityof New York, 287 AD2d 689 [2001]).[*2]
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.