Court Opinion

ID: 5815873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 19:51:13.892236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:59.708179
License: Public Domain

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant plaintiff was engaged in age-appropriate activity at the time of the accident (cf. Troiani v White Plains City School Dist., 64 AD3d 701 [2009]; Newman v Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 23 AD3d 631 [2005]), that he was adequately supervised (see Ferrill v Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1, 6 AD2d 690 [1958]), and that it maintained the playground in a reasonably safe condition (see generally Miller v Kings Park Cent. School Dist., 54 AD3d 314 [2008]; Botti v Seaford Harbor Elementary School Dist. 6, 24 AD3d 486 [2005]). Since the defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of proof, it is unnecessary to analyze the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.