| Paragas v Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06521 [65 AD3d 1111] |
| September 15, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Louis A. Paragas et al., Appellants, v Comsewogue UnionFree School District, Respondent. |
—[*1] Devitt Spellman Barrett LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (John M. Denby of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), dated May 16, 2008, which granted thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff allegedly was injured during gym class when he accidentally collidedwith another student during a game. The infant plaintiff was six years old and in first grade at thetime. The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant, Comsewogue Union Free SchoolDistrict, to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused as a result of negligent supervision.The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint. We affirm.
A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would areasonably prudent parent (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). Aschool, however, is not an insurer of its students' safety and will be held liable only forforeseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (see Paca v City of New York, 51AD3d 991, 992 [2008]; Janukajtis v Fallon, 284 AD2d 428, 429 [2001]).
Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment,establishing, as a matter of law, that it provided adequate supervision and, in any event, that anyalleged inadequacy in the level of supervision was not a proximate cause of the accident (see Ronan v School Dist. of City of NewRochelle, 35 AD3d 429 [2006]; Siegell v Herricks Union Free School Dist., 7 AD3d 607 [2004]).The defendant submitted evidence that, among other things, the 19 children in the infantplaintiff's gym class were playing an age-appropriate game under the supervision of a teacherwith several years of experience, that the collision was inadvertent, and that more intensesupervision would not have prevented the spontaneous and accidental collision of the twochildren (see Doyle v Binghamton CitySchool Dist., 60 AD3d 1127 [2009]).[*2]
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issueof fact as to whether the supervision was inadequate or whether any alleged inadequacy in thelevel of supervision was a proximate cause of the accident (see De Los Santos v New York City Dept. of Educ., 42 AD3d 422[2007]; Botti v Seaford Harbor Elementary School Dist. 6, 24 AD3d 486[2005]). The plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence that more intense supervision might haveprevented the accidental collision (see Doyle v Binghamton City School Dist., 60 AD3dat 1127). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Dickerson andAustin, JJ., concur.