Bozick v. Chocianowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bozick v. Chocianowski

133 A.D.2d 204, 518 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49712

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

DecidedAugust 24, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 204 (Bozick v. Chocianowski) 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

Bozick v. Chocianowski, 133 A.D.2d 204, 518 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered February 28, 1986, which, upon the defendant’s motion, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, dismissed the complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case. The evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant’s dog exhibited vicious propensities of which the defendant was or should have been aware (see, Appel v Charles Heinsohn, Inc., 91 AD2d 1029, affd 59 NY2d 741), and, accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action seeking to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.), entered February 28, 1986, which, upon the defendant’s motion, made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, dismissed the complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case. The evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant’s dog exhibited vicious propensities of which the defendant was or should have been aware (see, Appel v Charles Heinsohn, Inc., 91 AD2d 1029, affd 59 NY2d 741), and, accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 204, 518 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bozick-v-chocianowski-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack