You are here: / / DOG-BITE COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

DOG-BITE COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ complaint in this dog-bite case was properly dismissed. There was no showing the dog had ever exhibited any vicious propensities:

The evidence submitted in support of [defendants’ motion for summary judgment], including the deposition transcripts of the testimony of each plaintiff and each defendant, established that the defendants were not aware, nor should they have been aware, that this dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior or vicious propensities. The deposition testimony demonstrated that prior to the subject incident, the dog at most merely barked at guests when they first came to the house. The dog did not snap its teeth. It did not chase people. The dog generally stayed in the kitchen, but was not kept away for the safety of others. The infant plaintiff had been a guest on multiple occasions at the defendants’ home without concern about any vicious propensities of the dog. There was no evidence that the dog was trained to guard the home … . Ioveno v Schwartz, 2016 NY Slip Op 04023, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

 

DOG-BITE (COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)/STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT (DOG-BITE COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED)

You might also like
COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBE THE GOODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS SEEKING PAYMENT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3016, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DISPUTE EACH ITEM, A GENERAL DENIAL WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (CPLR 3215) IS NOT ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE IS NOT “WITH PREJUDICE” (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET.
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT INVESTIGATE ALIBI EVIDENCE, DID NOT OBJECT TO EVIDENCE WHICH HAD BEEN RULED OFF LIMITS, AND DID NOT IMPEACH THE COMPLAINANT WITH INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
3/4 Inch Depression Obscured by Puddle of Water Not Trivial As a Matter of Law
14-YEAR-OLD PLAYING CATCH ON A SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TWO TO FIVE INCH DEPRESSION IN THE FIELD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS... INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY...