| Keaveny v Mahopac Cent. School Dist. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02517 [71 AD3d 955] |
| March 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John-Keith Keaveny et al., Appellants, v Mahopac CentralSchool District, Respondent. |
—[*1] Congdon, Flaherty, O'Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger, Uniondale, N.Y.(Gregory A. Cascino of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O'Rourke, J.), entered December 18, 2008, whichgranted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"Although schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students under their chargeand will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequatesupervision, schools are not insurers of the safety of their students, for they cannot reasonably beexpected to continuously supervise and control all of the students' movements and activities" (Legette v City of New York, 38 AD3d853, 854 [2007]; see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994];Convey v City of Rye School Dist., 271 AD2d 154, 159 [2000]). Moreover, liability forinjuries resulting from a fight between two students cannot be predicated on negligentsupervision if the plaintiff was a voluntary participant in the fight (see Williams v City of New York, 41AD3d 468, 468-469 [2007]; Janukajtis v Fallon, 284 AD2d 428, 430 [2001];Williams v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Mount Vernon, 277 AD2d 373[2000]).
The defendant established, prima facie, that the incident at issue here "occur[ed] in so short aspan of time that 'even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it' " and that,consequently, any lack of supervision did not proximately cause the injury (Janukajtis vFallon, 284 AD2d at 430, quoting Convey v City of Rye School Dist., 271 AD2d at160). In response to that prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of factas to whether any purported lack of supervision proximately caused the occurrence (seeJanukajtis v Fallon, 284 AD2d at 430; Convey v City of Rye School Dist., 271AD2d at 160; see also Eberwein vNewburgh Enlarged City School Dist., 31 AD3d 492 [2006]; Hernandez v Board ofEduc. of City of N.Y., 302 AD2d 493, 494 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Courtproperly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Eng and Roman, JJ., concur.