Cohen v. Kretzschmar

30 A.D.3d 555, 817 N.Y.S.2d 148
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 555 (Cohen v. Kretzschmar) 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
Cohen v. Kretzschmar, 30 A.D.3d 555, 817 N.Y.S.2d 148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered August 11, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) a judgment of the same court dated August 20, 2004, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CFLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that their dog did not have a propensity to jump up on people and that they did not have prior notice of any such propensity (see Slacin v Aquafredda, 2 AD3d 624 [2003]; Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604 [1997]; see also Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592 [2006]). Moreover, the defendants demonstrated that they were not negligent in the manner in which they handled their dog at the time of the alleged accident (cf. Clifford v Turkel, 7 AD3d 251 [2004]; Goldberg v LoRusso, 288 AD2d 257 [2001]). In opposition, the [556]*556plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Miller, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gammon v. Curley
2017 NY Slip Op 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Claps v. Animal Haven, Inc.
34 A.D.3d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 555, 817 N.Y.S.2d 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-kretzschmar-nyappdiv-2006.