Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the defendant that the trial court should not have considered the affidavit submitted by the infant plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, since it directly contradicted her prior, sworn testimony at an examination before trial ( see, Leale v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 222 A.D.2d 414; Kistoo v. City of New York, 195 A.D.2d 403).
Nevertheless, the court properly denied summary judgment. Although the defendant is not an insurer of the children entrusted to its care, it is under a duty to adequately supervise such children, and it can be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the lack of adequate supervision ( see generally, Mirand v. City of New York, 84 N.Y.2d 44; Vonungern v. Morris Cent. School, 240 A.D.2d 926). Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant did not demonstrate prima facie entitlement to judgment in its favor as a question of fact exists regarding whether or not its employees adequately supervised the infant plaintiff on the day in question ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.