| Rodriguez v Riverhead Cent. School Dist. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05686 [85 AD3d 1147] |
| June 28, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alexander Rodriguez et al., Respondents, v RiverheadCentral School District, Appellant. |
—[*1] David J. Raimondo, Lake Grove, N.Y. (Susan R. Nudelman of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated July 21, 2010, which denied itsmotion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On June 3, 2008, the infant plaintiff, then a fourth-grade student at Aquebogue ElementarySchool, allegedly was injured in the school's cafeteria during regular school hours whilerehearsing a break dancing routine for an upcoming school concert. The infant plaintiff, by hismother, and his mother, individually, commenced this action against the defendant to recover,among other things, damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the infant plaintiff. Thedefendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, asserting that it hadadequately supervised the infant plaintiff at the time of the incident and, in any event, that anynegligence on its part was not a proximate cause of his injuries. The Supreme Court denied themotion, and 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]; Hernandez v Middle Country Cent. SchoolDist., 83 AD3d 781 [2011]). A school, however, is not an insurer of its students' safetyand will be held liable only for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence ofadequate supervision (see Paragas vComsewogue Union Free School Dist., 65 AD3d 1111 [2009]; Paca v City of New York, 51 AD3d991, 992 [2008]). Here, the defendant failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish, primafacie, that it properly supervised the infant plaintiff or that its alleged negligent supervision wasnot a proximate cause of his injuries (see Hernandez v Middle Country Cent. SchoolDist., 83 AD3d at 781; Doxtader vMiddle Country Cent. School Dist. at Centereach, 81 AD3d 685, 686 [2011]; Bloomfield v Jericho Union Free SchoolDist., 80 AD3d 637, 639 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied thedefendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, regardless of the sufficiencyof the plaintiffs' opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. [*2]Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Dillon, J.P., Covello,Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.