## Facts

- In 1993, Paul Siegell, a high school student, participated in a physical education “frisbee relay race.”
- During the activity, another student, Moshe Pergament, allegedly ran into or pushed Siegell from behind while both pursued the same frisbee.
- Siegell claimed personal injuries; his mother asserted derivative claims.
- The plaintiffs sued the school district for negligent supervision and also asserted claims against Pergament, later pursued against his estate administrator.
- The trial court denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment but granted the estate’s cross-motion dismissing the complaint against it.

## Issues

1. Whether the school district was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the negligent supervision claim arising from a gym-class activity.
2. Whether the estate administrator was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the intentional tort claim where the record presented a dispute over whether the co-student acted intentionally.

## Decision

- The appellate court modified the order.
- It granted the school district summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against the district.
- It denied summary judgment to the estate on the fifth cause of action, reinstating the intentional tort claim because a triable issue existed as to whether Pergament intentionally ran into or pushed the plaintiff.
- The action proceeded against remaining defendants, severed from the dismissed claims against the district.

## Legal Principles

- A school district owes students a duty of reasonable supervision but is not an insurer of student safety.
- School liability for student-on-student injuries requires proof that inadequate supervision was a proximate cause and that the harmful conduct was reasonably foreseeable and preventable with proper supervision.
- Sudden student contact during an organized, supervised physical education activity does not, without more, establish a triable negligent supervision claim.
- Summary judgment is improper on an intentional tort claim when the evidence permits a reasonable factfinder to conclude the conduct was intentional.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the negligent supervision claims against the school district because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue that the injury was a foreseeable consequence of inadequate supervision during the supervised gym activity, but it allowed the intentional tort claim against the co-student’s estate to continue due to a factual dispute over intent.


Siegell v. Herricks Union Free Sch. Dist., 7 A.D.3d 607 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2004)