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
ABSENCE OF A COMMA, STANDING ALONE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DICTATE THE MEANING OF A CODE PROVISION.
A Forged Deed Is Void Ab Initio and Conveys Nothing to a Bona Fide Purchaser or Encumbrancer
Conviction of Endangering Welfare of a Child Against Weight of Evidence; Defendant Did Not Open Door to Questioning About Prior Bad Acts Ruled Off Limits in Sandoval Hearing; Rape Shield Law Exception Applied
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT).
“Aid of the Court No Longer Required” in Neglect Proceeding
Conflicting Expert Opinions, One of Which Was “Conclusory” with Respect to Proximate Cause, Raised Question of Fact
Village Ordinance Prohibiting Crematory Not Preempted by State Law Under Either Express or Conflict Preemption Criteria

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...