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)

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE INSIDE THE BUILDING SHE WAS WORKING IN, THE JURY COULD RATIONALLY CONCLUDE THE ICE WAS THE RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS BASED ON LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SPECULATION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, RELIEF WHICH WAS NOT REQUESTED BY DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COMPUTATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE FACTS THAT THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Expanded Jury Instruction on the Voluntariness of a Statement Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)—Trial Judge Should Not Have Participated in Readback of Testimony (Not Reversible Error Here)
THE CONVICTION FOR GRAND LARCENY BY FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT RECEIVED ADDITIONAL FUNDS AFTER MAKING THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION AND NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...