You are here: / / Landlord With Notice of a Tenant’s Dog’s Vicious Propensities...
,

Landlord With Notice of a Tenant’s Dog’s Vicious Propensities May Be Liable to the Injured Plaintiff

In finding that there were questions of fact precluding summary judgment in a dog-bite case, the Third Department noted that a landlord with notice of a dog’s vicious propensities can be liable to the injured plaintiff:

“A landlord may be liable for the attack by a dog kept by a tenant if the landlord has actual or constructive knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities and maintains sufficient control over the premises to require the animal to be removed or confined” … . Defendant was empowered to require the [tenants] to remove the animal and, indeed, its site manager testified that he took steps to do so once he learned of the dog’s existence in September 2012. Rodgers v Horizons At Monticello, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 06189, 3rd Dept 7-16-15

 

You might also like
LEASE WAS AMBIGUOUS ABOUT TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR INSTALLATION OF A STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM AND THE LANDLORD’S EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
It May Be an Abuse of Discretion for the Board to Refuse to Review an Untimely Application Raising a Jurisdictional Issue/Board May Be Barred from Reopening a Closed Claim More than Seven Years After the Accident
PLAINTIFF’S WHISTEBLOWER ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALLEGING THE DISTRICT TOOK RETALIATORY ACTION AGAINST PLAINTIFF BECAUSE OF ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF MADE AGAINST ANOTHER DISTRICT EMPLOYEE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER WHO WORKED AT A VEHICLE CHECKPOINT FOR TRAFFIC TO AND FROM GROUND ZERO AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DESTROYED, PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEANUP WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 28; THEREFORE HIS CLAIM (BASED UPON TOXIN-RELATED INJURY) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A CHANGE IN CUSTODY SUCH THAT THE COUPLE’S SON, WHO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM, WOULD RELOCATE WITH FATHER TO MASSACHUSETTS, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING MORE FINANCIALLY SECURE THAN MOTHER; FAMILY COURT DID NOT GIVE PROPER WEIGHT TO THE SON’S WISHES (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE SIX-MONTH LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE SUBCONTRACT EXPIRED BEFORE SUIT COULD BE BROUGHT; THE TERMS OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD IN THE LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND CONFLICTED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE FINANCE LAW; THE STATE FINANCE LAW CONTROLS (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS, WHO HELD CATERED EVENTS, INCLUDING WEDDINGS, AT THEIR FARM, COMMITTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE WHEN THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS’ SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT THE FARM.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Concurrent Inclusory Counts Dismissed and Sentences Vacated—Defense Counsel’s... Ruling that Subject Child Could Not Visit Father in the Presence of Father’s...