You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this dog-bite case, determined there was a question of fact whether the landlord’s (Fowler LLC’s) agents knew of the vicious propensities of a dog on the premises:

“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” … . “Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others” … . “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” … .

Fowler met its prima facie burden for judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was not aware, nor should it have been aware, that the dog had any vicious propensities … . However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether nonparties John Martel and Carlos Ortez were Fowler’s agents such that their knowledge of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities could be imputed to Fowler … . Kraycer v Fowler St., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01345, 2nd Dept 2-22-17

 

ANIMAL LAW (DOG-BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/DOG-BITE (LANDLORD, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LANDLORD-TENANT (DOG-BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/AGENCY (DOG-BITE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 BECAUSE ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE BASED ON LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, A DEFENDANT MUST PROVE WHEN THE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE FALL WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED; PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES IS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE VICTIM’S AGE, FACTOR 7 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE RISK ASSESSMENT.
Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s Duty to Keep Premises Reasonably Safe
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S CLOTHES BY A DETECTIVE AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE DEFENDANT WAS BEING TREATED FOR A GUNSHOT WOUND; THE CLOTHES AND THE DNA EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CLOTHES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
PURPORTED SUPPLEMENTAL BILLS OF PARTICULARS ALLEGING NEW INJURIES WERE ACTUALLY AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WHICH WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH HARMLESS, IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS WITHOUT AUTHENTICATING THE ACCOUNTS, PHOTOGRAPHS AND STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND IRRELEVANT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (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

PROFFERED COPY OF A GUARANTY PROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM EVIDENCE. NO PROOF DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PERMANENTLY, AS OPPOSED TO TEMPORARILY, DEPRIVE...