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)