You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS...

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should have been granted. The defendants demonstrated they did not have notice of the dog’s vicious propensities:

Aside from the limited exception set forth in Hastings v Sauve (21 NY3d 122, 125-126) regarding a farm animal that strays from the place where it is kept… , which is not at issue 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 upon a theory of strict liability in tort for damages caused by a dog, a plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities, and that the owner of the dog knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities … . 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” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that their dog did not have vicious propensities and, in any event, that they neither knew nor should have known that their dog allegedly had vicious propensities … .  Cintorrino v Rowsell, 2018 NY Slip Op 05446, Second Dept 7-25-18

ANIMAL LAW (DOG-BITE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/DOG-BITE (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (4) MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR COUNTERCLAIM, NOT BY A MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TIME-OF-THE-ESSENCE CLOSING DATE SET IN SELLER’S LETTER PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME FOR BUYER TO CLOSE; THEREFORE SELLER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT REQUIRING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE STATE, NOT THE TOWN, OWNS THE LAND BENEATH THE LAKE, THE TOWN DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO BRING CRIMINAL CHARGES BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS; THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND AND PLAINTIFFS BROUGHT A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL MATTER WAS TERMINATED IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONER, A PROBATIONARY POLICE OFFICER CHALLENGING HIS TERMINATION, RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING; THEREFORE THE SUMMARY DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 409 WAS NOT AVAILABLE (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

DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). TOWN DID NOT VIOLATE THE TOWN CODE OR THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW...