Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Ambrosio v. South Huntington Union Free Sch. Dist., 249 A.D.2d 346 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laskowski v. 525 Park Avenue Condominium
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
The affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert, submitted in opposition to the motion, regarding ladder safety failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as that affidavit was entirely conclusory and unsubstantiated (see Verma v City of New York, 62 AD3d 863 [2009]; Crawford v Jefferson House Assoc., LLC, 57 AD3d 822, 823 [2008]; Trummer v Niewisch, 17 AD3d 349, 350 [2005]; Ambrosio v South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 AD2d 346, 346-347 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carlino v. Triboro Coach Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
The plaintiff presented no evidence that the policy was reflective of an industry standard or a generally-accepted safety practice (see Ambrosio v South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 AD2d 346, 347 [1998]; Ray v County of Delaware, 239 AD2d 755 [1997]; cf. Trimarco v Klein, 56 NY2d 98 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ford v. Citibank, N.A.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Thus, it was insufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to whether Citibank acted unreasonably on the day of the plaintiff’s accident (see Ambrosio v South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 AD2d 346, 346-347 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diaz v. New York Downtown Hospital
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · confidence medium
(See, Ambrosio v South Huntington Union Free School Dist., 249 AD2d 346, 347 [failure to comply with State University’s Manual of Planning Standards did not raise issue of fact where no evidence that planning standards were generally reflective of a generally accepted safety practice]; Ray v County of Delaware, 239 AD2d 755, 757 [mere interposition of safeguard checklist to limit sexual exploitation by therapists, attributed to a licensed psychologist, was inadequate to raise an issue of fact in negligent supervision case].) Accordingly, plaintiff cannot convert these industry recom mendatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nicole M. Ambrosio
v.
South Huntington Union Free School District
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 13, 1998.
249 A.D.2d 346
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 28, 1997, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff, while a third-grade student at the defendant’s school, was racing with her friends in the school playground when she tripped and fell against a glass window. The infant plaintiffs hand hit the glass “hard”, and both her hand and arm went through the window, causing her to sustain injuries. The plaintiffs thereafter commenced this action against the defendant alleging, inter alia, that it had negligently failed to equip the window with safety glass. The defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment upon the ground that there was no evidence that window was unsafe, or that the failure to install safety glass violated any applicable rule or regulation. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and we affirm.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the conclusory affidavit[*347] of its expert was insufficient to show that the subject window did not conform to relevant safety standards (see, Murphy v Conner, 84 NY2d 969, 972; Beyda v Helmsley Enters., 245 AD2d 479; cf., Trimarco v Klein, 56 NY2d 98, 106-107). Although the plaintiffs’ expert claimed that the failure to use impact-resistant glass in school windows located near play areas violated a provision contained in the “Manual of Planning Standards” issued by the State University of New York, there is no evidence that these planning standards are reflective of generally-accepted architectural safety practices. Moreover, there is no proof that the subject provision of the planning manual applies to exterior glass in windows which border outdoor play areas. The record further reveals that there was no history of any prior accidents or breakage (see, Maloney v Union Free School Dist. No. 7, 41 AD2d 937). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiffs have failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the use of ordinary glass in the window was unsafe. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.