You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS KNOCKED TO THE GROUND BY DEFENDANTS’ DOG;...
,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS KNOCKED TO THE GROUND BY DEFENDANTS’ DOG; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT TO THE CONTRARY; 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 “plaintiff knocked to the ground by a dog” action should have been granted. Plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact in the face of defendants’ proof they were not aware of, and should not have been aware of, the dog’s vicious propensities:

“To recover in strict liability for damages caused by a dog, 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” … . “Knowledge of vicious propensities may be established by evidence of, among other things, a prior similar attack or by evidence that the dog was known to growl, snap, or bare its teeth” … . In contrast, “‘[k]nowledge of normal canine behavior, such as running around, pulling on a leash and barking at another dog or passerby, barking at strangers, or chasing animals, will not support a finding of knowledge of vicious propensities'” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint by demonstrating that they were not aware, nor should have been aware, that the dog had vicious propensities … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff’s affidavit raised only feigned issues of fact designed to avoid the consequences of his earlier deposition testimony … . Yi-Ching Liu v Chu, 2026 NY Slip Op 00284, Second Dept 1-21-26

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was injured when defendants’ dog knocked him to the ground. Consult this decision for insight into the proof a defendant dog-owner must present to demonstrate defendant was not not aware of, and should not have been aware of, a dog’s “vicious propensities.”

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY.
CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS NOT MET, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED BY MAKING A FINDING IN A MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COMPTROLLER.
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM BY A DETECTIVE’S TESTIM0NY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF A STATEMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY A NONTESTYING ACCOMPLICE; THE ERROR WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF, NOT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CITING CRAWFORD V WASHINGTON (SECOND DEPT),
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN AN ANSWER OR A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

HERE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY... THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET BEEN...