Clifford v. Turkel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clifford v. Turkel

7 A.D.3d 251, 776 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467

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

DecidedMay 4, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 251 (Clifford v. Turkel) 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

Clifford v. Turkel, 7 A.D.3d 251, 776 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 19, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs evidence that she fell after becoming entangled in defendant’s dog’s retractable leash when the dog playfully ran around her legs is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that defendant was negligent in failing to control her dog (see Colarusso v Dunne, 286 AD2d 37 [2001]; Goldberg v LoRusso, 288 AD2d 257 [2001]; see also Schwartz v Armand Erpf Estate, 255 AD2d 35, 38 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]). Defendant’s evidence that plaintiff fell on ice simply raises an issue of fact as to causation, and her evidence that plaintiff called the dog over, as she often did upon seeing him, simply raises an issue of fact as to comparative negligence. An issue of fact as to causation is also raised by plaintiffs evidence that the accident occurred in a public park and that the length of the leash exceeded six feet in violation of 56 RCNY 1-04 (i) (cf. McCullough v Maurer, 268 AD2d 569 [2000]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 19, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs evidence that she fell after becoming entangled in defendant’s dog’s retractable leash when the dog playfully ran around her legs is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that defendant was negligent in failing to control her dog (see Colarusso v Dunne, 286 AD2d 37 [2001]; Goldberg v LoRusso, 288 AD2d 257 [2001]; see also Schwartz v Armand Erpf Estate, 255 AD2d 35, 38 [1999], lv dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]). Defendant’s evidence that plaintiff fell on ice simply raises an issue of fact as to causation, and her evidence that plaintiff called the dog over, as she often did upon seeing him, simply raises an issue of fact as to comparative negligence. An issue of fact as to causation is also raised by plaintiffs evidence that the accident occurred in a public park and that the length of the leash exceeded six feet in violation of 56 RCNY 1-04 (i) (cf. McCullough v Maurer, 268 AD2d 569 [2000]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Sullivan and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 251, 776 N.Y.S.2d 550, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-v-turkel-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack