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

DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the dog owners’ (Hoffmans’) motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should not have been granted. However the landlord’s and property manager’s motions for summary judgment were properly granted because they demonstrated no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities.  Plaintiffs’ child was bitten when visiting the Hoffmans’ apartment:

The sole means of recovery of damages for injuries caused by a dog bite or attack is upon a theory of strict liability, whereby “a plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner 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 in a given situation” … . “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” … .

The record shows, inter alia, that prior to this incident, the dog was often restrained within the Hoffman defendants’ apartment, particularly when visitors were present, but also, while only family members were present. By itself, the fact that a dog has been customarily confined cannot serve as the predicate for liability where “[t]here [is] no evidence that [the dog] was confined because the owners feared [it] would do any harm to their visitors” …  Here, however, the record contains evidence that the Hoffman defendants attempted to limit interaction between the dog and visitors. The record shows that [Hoffman’s child] attempted to secure the dog prior to letting [plaintiff’s child] into the apartment on the date of the incident. The record also shows that the Hoffman defendants acquired the dog partly to provide “security” for the family.

In addition, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants … , the record shows that approximately two months prior to the incident, this dog allegedly attempted to bite the plaintiff, tearing his pants leg. Further, the evidence of the “intensity and ferocity” of the attack tends to establish the Hoffman defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities … . King v Hoffman, 2019 NY Slip Op 08994, Second Dept 12-18-19

 

You might also like
THE POLICE OFFICERS’ DECIDING NOT TO ARREST PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON AFTER AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN HER AND HER SON WAS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ATTACK BY HER SON RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT PROOF SIGNATURE ON A POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FORGED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
PLAINTIFF, AT HER DEPOSITION, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLEW OVER ONTO PLAINTIFFS NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6); QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER CAN NOT RECOVER FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSED BY IN UTERO INJURY WHEN THE BABY IS BORN ALIVE.
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE PROOF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION.

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

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS... COURT-APPROVED CUSTODY AND PARENTAL ACCESS STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN...