Opinion · Nylaw New York

COLON v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE CITY OF N.Y., 156 A.D.2d 131 [1st Dept 1989]

MARILYN COLON, as Guardian ad Litem of HECTOR COMACHO, Appellant, v. BOARDOF Educ. OF THE CITY OF N.Y. et al., Respondents., 156 A.D.2d 131 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1989)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1989-12-05
Topic
general

COLON v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE CITY OF N.Y., 156 A.D.2d 131 [1st Dept 1989] MARILYN COLON, as Guardian ad Litem of HECTOR COMACHO, Appellant, v. BOARDOF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. December 5, 1989 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed COLON v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE CITY OF N.Y., 156 A.D.2d 131 [1st Dept 1989]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

COLON v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF THE CITY OF N.Y.,156 A.D.2d 131[1st Dept 1989]
MARILYN COLON, as Guardian ad Litem of HECTOR COMACHO, Appellant, v. BOARD
OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
December 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.).
Defendant Board of Education's duty to students arises from its physical custody over them(Pratt v Robinson,39 N.Y.2d 554). When that custody ceases, and the child passes out of the school's authority such that the parent is free to reassume control, the school's custodial duty ceases(Pratt v Robinson,supra, at 560). Here there has been no showing whatever by plaintiffs to connect the actions of defendant Villanueva, which allegedly took place in his apartment, with that of the Board of Education. The circumstantial nature of the infant plaintiff's presence at the school where he first made contact with the defendant Villanueva is not sufficient to sustain the claim of negligence.

Appellants' claim that further discovery should be conducted prior to any granting of summary judgment is also without merit. No demonstration has been made concerning the reason for the four-year hiatus in discovery after the institution of suit, nor has any showing been made as to what further discovery might disclose.

We have reviewed the remainder of the plaintiffs' arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.