NO NOTICE OF TRIPPING HAZARD TO GIRL HURT AT SCHOOL; DEFENSE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING CASE

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

Case: Georgina Crawford v. Smithtown Central School District

Date: Jan. 31, 2012

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Queens; Queens accident attorney)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

SLIP-AND-FALL ACCIDENT IN LAUNDRY ROOM DISMISSED: NO "NOTICE" TO BUILDING OWNER & MANAGER; NO "DUTY OF CARE" OR "NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION" BY PARENTS(Posted by Brooklyn accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Dec 15, 2011)

PEDESTRIAN'S CASE FOR TRIP-AND-FALL ON WOOD BOARD AT CONSTRUCTION SITE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF NOTICE(Posted by Brooklyn accident attorney Gary E. Rosenberg on Mar 13, 2012)

**************************************************

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated November 29, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant Smithtown Central School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff's infant daughter allegedly sustained personal injuries when she tripped and fell over a rock or a piece of asphalt in the schoolyard of her elementary school during her lunch recess. The defendant Smithtown Central School District (hereinafter the defendant) established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition which proximately caused the accident (see Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836, 501 N.Y.S.2d 646, 492 N.E.2d 774). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court properly declined to consider the plaintiff's new theory of liability raised for the first time in opposition to the motion in light of the plaintiff's protracted delay in presenting it (see Horn v. Hires, 84 A.D.3d 1025, 924 N.Y.S.2d 411; Medina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 41 A.D.3d 798, 839 N.Y.S.2d 162).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Categories