You are here: / / LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD...
, ,

LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should have been granted. The landlord was aware the tenant had a dog, and could have required the removal of the dog, but was not aware whether the dog had vicious propensities. The court noted that theories of common-law negligence are not applicable:

It is well established that ” [t]o 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’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that defendant was aware that a dog was kept on the premises by his tenants and that he could have required them to remove or confine the dog. Nevertheless, defendant met his initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that he lacked actual or constructive knowledge that his tenants’ dog had any vicious propensities … .

Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint includes a negligence cause of action, we conclude that the court erred in failing to dismiss that cause of action inasmuch as “[c]ases involving injuries inflicted by domestic animals may only proceed under strict liability based on the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities, not on theories of common-law negligence” … . Toher v Duchnycz, 2019 NY Slip Op 03487, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

You might also like
THE PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDED A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT BUT THE JUDGE ASSESSED ADDITIONAL POINTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING RAISING THE RISK LEVEL TO TWO; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE AREA WHERE THE DRUGS WERE FOUND; DEFENDANT’S MERE PRESENCE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DRUGS DID NOT PROVE HIS POSSESSION OF THE DRUGS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, SEVEN YEARS AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SIGNATURE ON THE AGREEMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED; IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE MUTUALLY REAFFIRMED TO BE VALID (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS DENIED PROPER MEDICAL CARE IN THE NIAGARA COUNTY JAIL AND SUED THE JAIL DOCTOR, THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS; OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DEEMED TIME-BARRED; ACTIONS ALLEGING THE COUNTY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHERIFF WERE DISMISSED; THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE COUNTY AND SHERIFF WERE NOT DEEMED “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE REDUCED IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER, BURGLARY, MURDER CASE DUE TO DEFENDANT’S AGE AND MENTAL ILLNESS (FOURTH DEPT).
RESTITUTION IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP FOR LOST WAGES WAS IMPROPERLY AWARDED BECAUSE “LOST WAGES” DOES NOT FIT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CAP RESTRICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
AN ENTRY IN THE CASE SUMMARY ALONE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR AN ASSESSMENT OF POINTS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER RE TWO COUNTS OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD DEGREE, WHICH ARE NOT VIOLENT FELONIES (FOURTH 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

PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED... THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S...