You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN DOG-BITE...

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN DOG-BITE CASE.

The Second Department determined defendants motion for summary judgment in a dog bite case was properly granted. The court explained the relevant law:

Aside from a limited exception for straying farm animals …, which has no application here, “New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal” … . …

To recover in strict liability for damages caused by a dog, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities … . “Evidence tending to demonstrate a dog's vicious propensities includes evidence of a prior attack, the dog's tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, the fact that the dog was kept as a guard dog, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that they were not aware, and should not have been aware, of any vicious propensity … . The defendants' submissions * * * established that, prior to the encounter with the plaintiff and her dog, there had never been any reported incident of aggression or viciousness … . Cosgrove v Trump Natl. Golf Club, 2015 NY Slip Op 09246, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED)/DOG BITE (PROOF REQUIREMENTS)

You might also like
THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO PETITION FOR VISITATION AFTER MOTHER’S DEATH; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A “BEST INTERESTS” HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BEFORE DEFENDANT WAS MADE A PARTY WAIVED ANY SUBSEQUENT LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE.
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF CAN PROVE THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS OVER A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE OR TRENCH; LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO WARN WAS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF THE INJURIES AND DEATHS IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ADMISSIBLE FORM TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM THAT DEFENDANT ACKNOWLEDGED THE MORTGAGE DEBT, STARTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANEW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS UNTIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Refusal to Comply with Discovery Demand Supported Sanction of Dismissal of the Complaint
ALTHOUGH INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DISCLAIMER OF INSURANCE COVERAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT (AS OPPOSED TO A PERSONAL INJURY) ACTION, THE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNTIMELY UNDER COMMON LAW WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL PRINCIPLES (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

DEFENDANT UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL;... “TRIAL PREPARATION” EXCEPTION TO A DETERMINATION WHETHER A PHOTOGRAPHIC...