| Cohen v City of New York |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05296 [119 AD3d 725] |
| July 16, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| 1 Janis Cohen, Appellant, v City of New York,Respondent. |
Newman, O'Malley & Epstein, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Lawrence Epstein ofcounsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnensheinand Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kerrigan, J.), dated November 13, 2012,which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant, the City of New York, established its prima facie entitlement tojudgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint in this action arising from aslip-and-fall accident by showing that the accident occurred on public school premises,and that it does not operate, maintain, or control the public schools (see Miner v City of New York,78 AD3d 669, 670 [2010]; Indar v City of New York, 71 AD3d 635 [2010]; Leacock v City of New York,61 AD3d 827 [2009]), which are within "the exclusive care, custody, and control ofthe [New York City] Board of Education, an entity separate and distinct from the City"(Bleiberg v City of NewYork, 43 AD3d 969, 971 [2007]; see NY City Charter§ 521; Education Law §§ 2554 [4]; 2590-b [1] [a]; McClain v City of New York,65 AD3d 1020 [2009]; Myers v City of New York, 64 AD3d 546 [2009];Leacock v City of New York, 61 AD3d at 827; Corzino v City of New York,56 AD3d 370 [2008]; Perezv City of New York, 41 AD3d 378 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed toraise a triable issue of fact (cf.Bleiberg v City of New York, 43 AD3d 969 [2007]). Accordingly, the SupremeCourt properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, since it cannot beheld liable for the negligent maintenance of school property (see Leacock v City ofNew York, 61 AD3d at 827; Goldes v City of New York, 19 AD3d 448, 449 [2005];Goldman v City of New York, 287 AD2d 689, 689-690 [2001]). Eng, P.J.,Leventhal, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.