In Trupia v. Lake George Cent. School Dist., 14 N.Y.3d 392, 927 N.E.2d 547, 901 N.Y.S.2d 127, 2010 NY Slip Op. 02833, [2010] the Court of Appeals held that an infant plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury when he injured himself from a bannister while attending a summer program administered by defendants on their premises. The Trupia Court reversed the dismissal of the infant plaintiff's negligent supervision claim, ruling that "little would remain of an educational institution's obligation to adequately supervise the children in its charge if school children could generally be deemed to have consented in advance to the risks of their misconduct." However, the majority also stated that "we do not hold that children may never assume the risks of activities, such as athletics, in which they freely and knowingly engage ... in the context of pursuits both unusually risky and beneficial that defendant has in some non-culpable way enabled," (Id.) The Trupia majority's reasoning for carving out the exception is that an assumption of risk framework helps to preserve the pursuit of athletic and recreational activities which possess "enormous social value." Since the activity of riding down a bannister is "not a case in which the defendant solely by reason of having sponsored or otherwise supported some risk-laden but socially valuable voluntary activity," the Trupia majority held that such activity is not worthy of protection under the assumption of risk doctrine (see id.)