You are here: / / Criteria for Landlord’s Liability in a Dog Bite Case Explained

Criteria for Landlord’s Liability in a Dog Bite Case Explained

The Second Department determined that the property owner’s and manager’s motion for summary judgment in a case where a tenant’s dog bit the plaintiff should not have been granted.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or a person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities” … . Vicious propensities include the ” propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation'” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … . “To recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises; (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog” … . Velez v Andrejka, 2015 NY Slip Op 01793, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS MISSED THE DEADLINE AND THEREBY WAIVED THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF, THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND COMPEL AN EXAM SHOUD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Waiver and Release Signed by Plaintiff When She Rented a Segway Vehicle Precluded Her Personal Injury Action Even Though the Accident Occurred During a Tour Conducted by Defendant’s Employees
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED TYPE SIZE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A SMOOTH SLIPPERY SURFACE, STANDING ALONE, WILL NOT SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.
DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY PROHIBITED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT FALSE ARREST AND POLICE BRUTALITY LAWSUITS FILED AGAINST THE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; DEFENDANT’S ONE-YEAR SENTENCE, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED, WAS REDUCED BY ONE DAY IN PART TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A ONE-YEAR SENTENCE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Release Applied to Claims Unknown at the Time the Release Was Signed and to... “Attempted Felony Assault” Charge Jurisdictionally Defective