Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lilian Pedroza, Individually and As Mother and Natural Guardian of Jose Bonilla, Etc., et al v. the City of New York

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


February 2, 2012

LILIAN PEDROZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF JOSE BONILLA, ETC., ET AL., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Pedroza v City of New York

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 2, 2012

Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered April 18, 2011, which, in an action alleging, inter alia, inadequate supervision, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in this action where plaintiff's son, a 10th-grade student, was injured after he lost his balance and fell while attempting to perform a martial-art maneuver during a physical education self-defense class at his school. His own testimony as to how the accident occurred demonstrates that no additional supervision could have prevented his injury (see Esponda v City of New York, 62 AD3d 458, 460 [2009]; McCollin v Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 45 AD3d 478, 479 [2007]; compare Llauger v Archdiocese of N.Y., 82 AD3d 656 [2011]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants failed to exercise the care "as a parent of ordinary prudence would observe in comparable circumstances" (Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Moreover, plaintiff did not submit evidence indicating that defendants violated a statute, regulation, or mandatory guideline stating that floor mats or bare feet were necessary during the practice of the martial art being performed by students (see Scarito v St. Joseph Hill Academy, 62 AD3d 773, 775 [2009]; Capotosto v Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Ctr., 2 AD3d 384, 386 [2003]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 2, 2012

CLERK

20120202

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.