You are here: / / Growling and Baring Teeth Insufficient to Raise Question of Fact About...

Growling and Baring Teeth Insufficient to Raise Question of Fact About a Dog’s Vicious Propensities

The First Department noted that a dog’s growling and baring its teeth is not sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact re: the dog’s vicious propensities:

No court has found that a dog’s growling at one or two other dogs is sufficient to establish vicious propensities, and the Third Department has specifically held that growling and baring of teeth, even at people, is insufficient to give notice of a dog’s vicious propensities … . Here, the evidence, which establishes only that defendant’s dog growled at two other dogs, one of whom had bitten her, and never growled or bared her teeth at any people, is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the dog’s vicious propensities. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint.   Gervais v Laino, 2013 NY Slip Op 08819, 1st Dept 12-31-13

 

You might also like
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER FINDING THE ISSUE PRESENTED AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE COURT DETERMINED THE STATE DID NOT ADEQUATELY ASSIST A SEX OFFENDER IS FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE.
Family Court Should Not Have Denied Nonparent’s Petition for Custody of a Child, and Awarded Custody to the Father and Mother, in the Absence of an Evidentiary Hearing
DENIAL OF PAROLE PROPERLY ANNULLED, NEW HEARING BEFORE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS ORDERED.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION CONCERNING THE METHODS OF SECURING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED PLAINTIFF’S UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER’S INCARCERATION CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES RE FATHER’S VISITATION/CONTACT PETITIONS; HEARING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; VISITATION PETITIONS NEED NOT BE VERIFIED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF A LANDFILL WAS PROPERLY DONE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THAT NEARBY RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).
A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (THIRD 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

Imposition of a Recreation Fee on New Construction In Lieu of Land for a Park... Relatives of Persons Buried in Defendant Cemetery Could Not Sue As Beneficiaries...