Belyski v. Pedone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belyski v. Pedone

240 A.D.2d 608, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6806

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

DecidedJune 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 608 (Belyski v. Pedone) 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

Belyski v. Pedone, 240 A.D.2d 608, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated May 31, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendants Guy Pedone and Josephine Pedone for sum[609]*609mary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The infant plaintiff was bitten by a dog owned by the decedent Doris Belyski and harbored at the residence of the defendants Guy and Josephine Pedone, where the decedent had resided. One who harbors a domestic animal will be held liable for injuries caused by the animal if that person knows or should know that the animal has vicious propensities (cf., Arbegast v Board of Educ., 65 NY2d 161; Lynch v Nacewicz, 126 AD2d 708). Summary judgment was improperly granted here since a question of fact was presented as to whether the respondents knew or should have known, on the day of the incident, that the dog exhibited vicious propensities. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Plorio and McGinity, 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, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated May 31, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendants Guy Pedone and Josephine Pedone for sum[609]*609mary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The infant plaintiff was bitten by a dog owned by the decedent Doris Belyski and harbored at the residence of the defendants Guy and Josephine Pedone, where the decedent had resided. One who harbors a domestic animal will be held liable for injuries caused by the animal if that person knows or should know that the animal has vicious propensities (cf., Arbegast v Board of Educ., 65 NY2d 161; Lynch v Nacewicz, 126 AD2d 708). Summary judgment was improperly granted here since a question of fact was presented as to whether the respondents knew or should have known, on the day of the incident, that the dog exhibited vicious propensities. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Plorio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 608, 659 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belyski-v-pedone-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack