Pedroza v City of New York

Pedroza v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 00706 Decided on February 2, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department 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.
6699 35028/09

[*1]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.




Goidel & Siegel, LLP, New York (Jonathan M. Goidel of
counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Dona B.
Morris of counsel), for respondents.

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 [*2]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