Clark-Huber v. Leo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark-Huber v. Leo

268 A.D.2d 550, 702 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 550 (Clark-Huber v. Leo) 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

Clark-Huber v. Leo, 268 A.D.2d 550, 702 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 8, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was bitten by a dog on premises owned by the defendant and the defendant’s in-laws. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages under a theory of strict liability. The record is devoid of evidence that the defendant was aware that the dog had vicious propensities or that the dog had displayed such propensities in the past (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572, 575; see also, Nicols v Cardone, 257 AD2d 612; Arcara v Whytas, 219 AD2d 871; Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604). Under the circumstances, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 8, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was bitten by a dog on premises owned by the defendant and the defendant’s in-laws. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages under a theory of strict liability. The record is devoid of evidence that the defendant was aware that the dog had vicious propensities or that the dog had displayed such propensities in the past (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572, 575; see also, Nicols v Cardone, 257 AD2d 612; Arcara v Whytas, 219 AD2d 871; Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604). Under the circumstances, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 550, 702 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-huber-v-leo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack