Paredes v City of New York

Annotate this Case
Paredes v City of New York 2012 NY Slip Op 08261 Decided on December 4, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 4, 2012
Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.
8701 350098/09

[*1] Jesus Paredes, an Infant Under the Age of Fourteen Years by His Mother and Natural Guardian Raquel Nunez, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, The

v

City of New York, Defendant, The Department of Education of the City of New York, Defendant-Appellant.




Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L.
Zaleon of counsel), for appellant.
Sonkin & Fifer, New York (Howard Fifer of counsel), for
respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered June 7, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant Department of Education's (DOE) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

"It is well-settled that schools have a duty to adequately supervise their students, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision" (Brandy B. v Eden Cent. School Dist., 15 NY3d 297, 302 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). "[A] teacher owes it to his [or her] charges to exercise such care of them 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 omitted]).

Summary judgment should have been granted in this action where the infant plaintiff was injured in a spontaneous playground accident. Moreover, the DOE employee supervising the playground at the time of the accident testified that she instructed the students on how to properly ride the apparatus from which the infant plaintiff fell, and there is no indication that any type of [*2]focused, repetitive instruction would have prevented the accident (cf. Hunter v New York City Dept. of Educ., __ NY3d __, 2012 NY Slip Op 06994 [2012], affg 95 AD3d 719, 719 [1st Dept 2012]).

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

ENTERED: DECEMBER 4, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.