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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 31, 2000·Published

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.

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

268 A.D.2d 550 (Clark-Huber v. Leo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related