You are here: / Animal Law

THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant veterinary clinic could not be held liable for a dog bite which occurred in the clinic waiting room under a negligence (failure to provide a safe waiting room area) theory. Plaintiff contended the strict liability theory did not apply because defendant clinic did not own the dog:

… [W]e hold that for defendant to be liable for the personal injuries allegedly sustained due to the dog attack that occurred in the waiting room, plaintiff must establish that defendant knew or should have known about the dog’s vicious propensities.

… [P]laintiff acknowledges in her appellate brief that she is not asserting a claim for strict liability against defendant and that her claims against it are grounded in negligence and premises liability. In her opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff likewise conceded that she did not have a strict liability claim against defendant. In any event, even if a strict liability claim could be extrapolated from plaintiff’s pleadings… . As such, Supreme Court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment … . Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08396, Third Dept 12-6-18

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT))/DOG BITE  (DOG BITE, THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals determined a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the NYC Department of Health to enforce laws preventing animal cruelty was properly denied. The writ concerned the slaughter of chickens as part of the religious practice of Kaporos prior to Yom Kippur:

A writ of mandamus “is an extraordinary remedy’ that is available only in limited circumstances'” … . Such remedy will lie “only to enforce a clear legal right where the public official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law” … . While mandamus to compel ” is an appropriate remedy to enforce the performance of a ministerial duty, it is well settled that it will not be awarded to compel an act in respect to which [a public] officer may exercise judgment or discretion'”… . Discretionary acts ” involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result'”. Further, mandamus may only issue to compel a public officer to execute a legal duty; it may not ” direct how [the officer] shall perform that duty'” … .

Enforcement of the laws cited by plaintiffs would involve some exercise of discretion (see Town of Castle Rock v Gonzales, 545 US 748, 760-761 [2005]). Moreover, plaintiffs do not seek to compel the performance of ministerial duties but, rather, seek to compel a particular outcome. Accordingly, mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for the relief sought … .  Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v New York City Police Dept., 2018 NY Slip Op 07694, CtApp 11-14-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/MANDAMUS (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/MUNICIPAL LAW (MANDAMUS, (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/RELIGION  (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))/ANIMAL LAW  (WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEEKING TO COMPEL ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF KILLING CHICKENS PROPERLY DENIED, MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE FOR DISCRETIONARY ACTS OR TO COMPEL A PARTICULAR OUTCOME (CT APP))

NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO STRICT LIABILITY, THEORY DID NOT APPLY TO INJURY FROM A HORSE WHICH WAS STARTLED WHEN THREE HORSES ESCAPED FROM A PADDOCK AND GALLOPED TOWARD THE BARN WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS GROOMING THE HORSE WHICH INJURED HER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined strict liability, not negligence, criteria applied to injury from a horse. Because the defendant demonstrated the escaped horses were domesticated animals and plaintiff did not allege the horses had vicious propensities, the complaint was properly dismissed:

The plaintiff alleges that she was injured while grooming a stallion in the barn at Hidden Brook Farm (hereinafter the farm), when three horses, who had escaped from their paddocks, galloped unaccompanied toward the barn. The stallion was startled and suddenly side-stepped, pinning the plaintiff against the wall. * * *

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, this case does not fall within the limited exception set forth in Hastings v Suave (21 NY3d 122, 125-126), regarding a farm animal that strays from the place where it is kept onto a public road or other property … . In carving out this exception, the Court of Appeals recognized “the unique peril that arises from allowing farm animals to wander off a farm unsupervised and unconfined” and the “common expectation among people in general that a 1,500-pound cow, a 400-pound pig or an unruly goat will not be permitted to wander freely into traffic or onto a neighbor's yard, mangling people and property alike” … . Here, the plaintiff was in the barn grooming a horse, and the presence of horses was not unexpected. Brinkman v Marshall Field VI, 2018 NY Slip Op 05996, Second Dept 9-12-18

ANIMAL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO STRICT LIABILITY, THEORY DID NOT APPLY TO INJURY FROM A HORSE WHICH WAS STARTLED WHEN THREE HORSES ESCAPED FROM A PADDOCK AND GALLOPED TOWARD THE BARN WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS GROOMING THE HORSE WHICH INJURED HER (SECOND DEPT))/HORSES  (NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO STRICT LIABILITY, THEORY DID NOT APPLY TO INJURY FROM A HORSE WHICH WAS STARTLED WHEN THREE HORSES ESCAPED FROM A PADDOCK AND GALLOPED TOWARD THE BARN WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS GROOMING THE HORSE WHICH INJURED HER (SECOND DEPT))

,

OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant's motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should not have been granted. An affidavit from plaintiff's neighbor raised a question of fact whether defendant was aware of the dog's vicious propensities. The Second Department further determined that the fact that the out-of-state affidavit was not accompanied by a certificate of conformity did not render it inadmissible:

…[I]n opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant's dog had vicious propensities, and whether the defendant knew or should have known of the dog's alleged vicious propensities … . According to an affidavit of the plaintiff's neighbor Michael Walters, submitted in opposition to the motion, on two occasions prior to the incident, the defendant warned Walters to be careful near the dog because he bites. This affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual and/or constructive notice that the dog had vicious propensities … . Contrary to the defendant's contention, Walters' affidavit was admissible, notwithstanding that it was subscribed and sworn to out of state and not accompanied by a certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309(c), as such a defect is not fatal, and no substantial right of the defendant was prejudiced by disregarding the defect … . Lipinsky v Yarusso, 2018 NY Slip Op 05925, Second Dept 8-29-18

ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITE, (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/DOG BITE (OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 2309 (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))/OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT (CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY, DOG BITE, OUT-OF-STATE AFFIDAVIT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DOG'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS ADMISSIBLE DESPITE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY (SECOND DEPT))

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))

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the insured made a misrepresentation to the insurer and whether the insurer timely disclaimed coverage for a dog bite. There were questions of fact whether the insured was asked about a prior bite by the dog and gave a false answer, and whether there had actually been a prior bite by the dog which would trigger a policy exclusion:

“When construing Insurance Law § 3420 (d), which requires an insurer to issue a written disclaimer of coverage for death or bodily injuries arising out of accidents ‘as soon as is reasonably possible,’ [the Court of Appeals has] made clear that timeliness almost always presents a factual question, requiring an assessment of all relevant circumstances surrounding a particular disclaimer[, and] cases in which the reasonableness of an insurer’s delay may be decided as a matter of law are exceptional and present extreme circumstances” … . “The timeliness of an insurer’s disclaimer is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” … . The insurer has an obligation not only to promptly provide notice of disclaimer once it has reached that decision, but to promptly investigate and reach a decision on whether to disclaim … . …

[The insurer] argues that it was entitled to rely on [the insured’s] statement that the dog had not previously bitten anyone. As noted above, there is a question of fact regarding whether [the insurer’s] claims manager actually asked [the insured] if she knew of any prior biting events. If the claims manager never asked that question, the record evidence presents a triable issue of fact as to whether [the insurer] failed to conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation into the potential applicability of the canine exclusion … . If the claims manager asked that question and received a negative answer, as she averred, then [the insurer] would be justified in relying on the representation by its insured … ; however, given that the [insured] had owned the dog for only approximately one month, there would still be a triable question of fact regarding the reasonableness of [the insured’s] investigation. As neither party established, as a matter of law, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the delay in [the insured’s  disclaimer, neither party was entitled to summary judgment … . Battisti v Broome Coop. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 04992, Third Dept 7-5-18

​INSURANCE LAW (DOG BITES, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITES, INSURANCE LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLAIMERS (INSURANCE LAW, DOG BITES, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should have been granted:

It is well established that “an animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities—albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” … . “A known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant[] liable for damages resulting from such an act” … . “In contrast, normal canine behavior’ such as barking and running around’ does not amount to vicious propensities” … .

The evidence establishes that, on the day of the incident, plaintiff sent a text message to a group of people that included defendant, as she had on previous occasions, to inform them that she would be at the dog park with her dog, who often played with Kane [defendant’s dog]. Immediately prior to the incident, plaintiff threw a ball for her dog, plaintiff’s dog retrieved the ball and, as he had frequently done in the past, Kane ran alongside plaintiff’s dog back toward plaintiff. Both dogs were running fast in plaintiff’s direction and, when it appeared that Kane was not going to veer off to the side, plaintiff turned away, whereupon Kane allegedly struck her leg. Despite evidence that Kane may have clumsily run around the dog park and similarly made contact with another visitor on a prior occasion, we conclude that, unlike situations in which a dog purposefully jumps onto or charges at a person … , “[Kane’s alleged] act of running into plaintiff in the course of . . . playfully [running alongside another dog at a dog park] merely consisted of normal canine behavior that does not amount to a vicious propensity” … . Long v Hess, 2018 NY Slip Op 04475, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

ANIMAL LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DOG BITE (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals denied the motion for leave to appeal in a case seeking habeas corpus relief for two chimpanzees alleged to be confined by their owners to small cages in a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area … . Judge Fahey wrote a thoughtful concurring opinion questioning the rationale used by the Appellate Division to deny relief:

The Appellate Division’s conclusion that a chimpanzee cannot be considered a “person” and is not entitled to habeas relief is in fact based on nothing more than the premise that a chimpanzee is not a member of the human species … . …

The better approach in my view is to ask not whether a chimpanzee fits the definition of a person or whether a chimpanzee has the same rights and duties as a human being, but instead whether he or she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. That question, one of precise moral and legal status, is the one that matters here. Moreover, the answer to that question will depend on our assessment of the intrinsic nature of chimpanzees as a species. …

Does an intelligent nonhuman animal who thinks and plans and appreciates life as human beings do have the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary cruelties and enforced detentions visited on him or her? This is not merely a definitional question, but a deep dilemma of ethics and policy that demands our attention. To treat a chimpanzee as if he or she had no right to liberty protected by habeas corpus is to regard the chimpanzee as entirely lacking independent worth, as a mere resource for human use, a thing the value of which consists exclusively in its usefulness to others. Instead, we should consider whether a chimpanzee is an individual with inherent value who has the right to be treated with respect … . Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 2018 NY Slip Op 03309, CtApp 5-8-18

​ANIMAL LAW (LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))/APPEALS (ANIMAL RIGHTS, LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))//HABEAS CORPUS (ANIMAL RIGHTS, LEAVE TO APPEAL DENIAL OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF FOR TWO CHIMPANZEES DENIED, THOUGHTFUL CONCURRING OPINION QUESTIONS THE ANALYSIS USED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND SUGGESTS RECOGNIZING THE CHIMPANZEES’ RIGHT TO LIBERTY (CT APP))

, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine and the signed release did not warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant in this horseback-riding injury case. Plaintiff fell from a horse during a riding lesson:

… [I]t is undisputed that plaintiff was a beginner and had never before attempted to mount or ride a horse, and the deposition testimony relied upon by defendants raises questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with mounting the horse by failing to give plaintiff adequate instructions and assistance based on her size, athleticism, and obvious struggles in attempting to mount the horse, and whether there were concealed risks of mounting the horse, i.e., whether the horse was “tacked” properly … . For the same reasons, we reject defendants’ contention, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the written release established as a matter of law that, as per the language of the release, plaintiff expressly assumed “the unavoidable risks inherent in all horse-related activities” … .  Jones v Smoke Tree Farm, 2018 NY Slip Op 03299, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASE (HORSE RIDING LESSONS, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence was legally sufficient to support the assault first conviction stemming from defendant’s allowing his dog to attack the victim. The court noted that the motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s case was adequate to preserve the challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of intent, even though the renewal of the motion at the close of evidence referred to the earlier motion:

The conviction arises from a dog attack that caused the victim to sustain injuries that included broken bones in his hands and the amputation of a portion of one of his fingers. The victim as well as witnesses to the attack testified that two pit bull terriers that had escaped their owner’s property attacked the victim, biting at his arms and legs, as the victim attempted to protect his dog from the pit bulls. Defendant, who was a friend of the owner of the pit bulls, arrived at the scene in a van driven by another man. Defendant exited the van, retrieved the two pit bulls and placed them in the van. After the pit bulls were secured in the van, the victim stood in front of the van and angrily told defendant that the police had been called and “you’re not going anywhere.” Defendant responded by asking the victim, “you coming at me? Are you going to stop me from leaving?” At that point defendant opened the van door and issued a command to the larger pit bull, who attacked the victim a second time, inflicting the injuries to the victim’s hands.

Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as the People failed to prove that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish such intent … . People v Bacon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03258, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT/DOGS (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy