| Troiani v White Plains City School Dist. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 05959 [64 AD3d 701] |
| July 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Jessica Troiani et al., Respondents, v White Plains CitySchool District et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein, Purchase, N.Y. (Jonathan D. Kraut of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from anorder of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Liebowitz, J.), entered January 5, 2009, whichdenied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint is granted.
The infant plaintiff, a five-year-old kindergarten student attending the defendant GeorgeWashington Elementary School, was injured when she fell from monkey bars in the school'splayground during recess. At the time of the accident, there were approximately 100 students inthe schoolyard with six teachers' aides to supervise them. One teacher's aide was specificallyassigned to supervise the monkey bars upon which the infant plaintiff was playing at the time ofthe accident.
The plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants were negligentin failing to provide adequate supervision of the students on the playground and in permitting theinfant plaintiff to use playground equipment which was purportedly inappropriate for a five yearold. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the SupremeCourt denied the motion, finding that issues of fact existed as to whether there was adequatesupervision of the students in the playground during recess and whether the playgroundequipment was safe and suitable for a five year old. The defendants appeal.
Schools have a duty to adequately supervise students in their charge and will be held liablefor foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (seeMirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 499 [1994]). Nevertheless, schools are notinsurers of their students' safety (seeDavid v County of Suffolk, 1 NY3d 525 [2003]; Ungaro v Patchogue-Medford, N.Y. School Dist., 19 AD3d 480[2005]; Calabrese v Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 294 AD2d 388, 389 [2002]).
Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of lawdismissing the complaint. They demonstrated that they provided adequate supervision during[*2]recess and, in any event, that the accident occurred in such amanner that it could not reasonably have been prevented by closer monitoring, thereby negatingany alleged lack of supervision as the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries (seeWeinblatt v Eastchester Union Free School Dist., 303 AD2d 581 [2003]; Berdecia v Cityof New York, 289 AD2d 354 [2001]; Navarra v Lynbrook Pub. Schools, LynbrookUnion Free School Dist., 289 AD2d 211 [2001]; Lopez v Freeport Union Free SchoolDist., 288 AD2d 355 [2001]). Additionally, the defendants submitted expert evidencedemonstrating that the playground equipment was appropriate for the infant plaintiff's age group,and was not defective.
In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. They argued,inter alia, that the equipment did not comply with safety guidelines promulgated by theAmerican Society for Testing and Materials. However, even if the equipment did not complywith those guidelines, such guidelines are insufficient to raise an issue of fact regardingnegligent design or installation (seeCapotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003];Davidson v Sachem Cent. School Dist., 300 AD2d 276 [2002]; Merson v SyossetCent. School Dist., 286 AD2d 668 [2001]). Accordingly, the defendants' motion forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Miller, Covello andAustin, JJ., concur.