Ballard v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballard v. Campbell

304 A.D.2d 780, 757 N.Y.S.2d 803

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 780 (Ballard v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballard v. Campbell, 304 A.D.2d 780, 757 N.Y.S.2d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered May 17, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, which sought to recover in common-law negligence for dog bites. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants failed to use reasonable care in keeping the dog on their premises and that they knew or should have known that the dog had a propensity to cause harm if left unrestrained (see Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604 [1997]; Hyde v Clute, 235 AD2d 909 [1997]; Nilsen v Johnson, 191 AD2d 930 [1993]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered May 17, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, which sought to recover in common-law negligence for dog bites. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants failed to use reasonable care in keeping the dog on their premises and that they knew or should have known that the dog had a propensity to cause harm if left unrestrained (see Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604 [1997]; Hyde v Clute, 235 AD2d 909 [1997]; Nilsen v Johnson, 191 AD2d 930 [1993]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 780, 757 N.Y.S.2d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-campbell-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack