Case Name: Nekhidia Harris et al., Appellants, v. Rector Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church et al., Defendants, and Therapy & Learning Center, Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-09-22
Citations: 308 A.D.2d 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nekhidia Harris et al., Appellants, v Rector Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church et al., Defendants, and Therapy & Learning Center, Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 308
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
Nekhidia Harris et al., Appellants, v Rector Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Christ Church et al., Defendants, and Therapy & Learning Center, Inc., Respondent.
[764 NYS2d 844]

Opinion:
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), entered May 1, 2002, which, upon the granting of the motion of the defendant Therapy & Learning Center, Inc., pursuant to CPLR 4401, made at the close of evidence, for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiffs' cause of action alleging negligent supervision and upon a jury verdict on the plaintiffs' cause of action alleging a dangerous and defective condition, is in favor of the defendant Therapy & Learning Center, Inc., and against them dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant Therapy & Learning Center, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), on the plaintiffs' cause of action alleging negligent supervision. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, no rational jury could have found that a lack of adequate supervision by that defendant was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44 [1994]; Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 AD2d 355 [2001]; Jennings v Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 279 AD2d 507 [2001]).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit (see Morgan v Pascal, 274 AD2d 561 [2000]; Bielicki v T.J. Bentey, Inc., 267 AD2d 266 [1999]). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.