DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On May 8, 2000, the infant plaintiff, then a third-grade student at the respondent Daniel Webster School located in New Rochelle, allegedly was injured when he fell during a supervised gym class while participating in a parachute activity. The premises were owned by the respondent City of New Rochelle Board of Education.
A school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent under comparable circumstances ( see Lawes v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 16 N.Y.2d 302, 305; Hoose v. Drumm, 281 N.Y. 54, 57-58; cf. Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44, 49; Rodriguez v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 104 A.D.2d 978, 979). However, a school is not an insurer of its students' safety ( see Opalek v. West Islip Union Free School Dist., 1 A.D.3d 491; cf. Mirand v. City of New York, supra) and will only be held liable if the injury in question was foreseeable and proximately linked to a failure to supervise ( see Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 279 A.D.2d 507, 508).
The respondents established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the infant plaintiff's injuries resulted from an accidental fall during an age-appropriate supervised activity and not from any negligence attributable to them ( see Jennings v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., supra).
In opposition, the plaintiff's conclusory and speculative submissions failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact ( see Dremeaux v. St. Francis Cemetery, 303 A.D.2d 542, 543; Wallach v. American Home Prods. Corp., 300 A.D.2d 576, 577).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.