[*1]
Diplan v City of New York
2006 NY Slip Op 51979(U) [13 Misc 3d 133(A)]
Decided on October 18, 2006
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on October 18, 2006
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Davis, J.P., Gangel-Jacob, J.
570664/05

Maria Diplan, an infant by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Martina Berroa, and Martina Berroa, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, The

against

City of New York, The Board of Education of the City of New York and Miriam Desoyza Learning Center, Inc. Defendants-Respondents.


Plaintiffs, as limited by their brief, appeal from that portion of an order of the Civil Court, Bronx County (Irving Rosen, J.), entered November 17, 2004, which granted the motion of defendant Miriam Desoyza Learning Center for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.


PER CURIAM:
Order (Irving Rosen, J.), entered November 17, 2004, affirmed, with $10 costs.

Plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff when she tripped and fell after stepping on her untied shoelace while playing tag with five other children at dismissal time in the front yard of her preschool, which was operated by defendant Miriam Desoyza Learning Center. Although plaintiffs maintain that the infant plaintiff's injury is attributable to the defendant school's failure to meet its obligation to adequately supervise the students during dismissal, the evidence shows that the dismissal was in fact supervised by teachers and school staff, and no issue is raised as to whether that level of supervision was adequate under the circumstances. To hold defendant responsible for this accident would be to require it to continuously supervise all of the movements and activities of its students, making it, in effect, an insurer of its students' safety (see Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
[*2]
Decision Date: October 18, 2006