DOBINSKI, CHERYL v. LOCKHART, GEORGE O.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DOBINSKI, CHERYL v. LOCKHART, GEORGE O.

121 A.D.3d 1601, 993 N.Y.S.2d 862

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2014

DocketCA 14-00100

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 121 A.D.3d 1601 (DOBINSKI, CHERYL v. LOCKHART, GEORGE O.) 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

DOBINSKI, CHERYL v. LOCKHART, GEORGE O., 121 A.D.3d 1601, 993 N.Y.S.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J), entered November 15, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is *1602 unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she collided with a dog owned by defendants while riding her bicycle in front of defendants’ house. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that they lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the dog had a propensity to interfere with traffic (see Myers v MacCrea, 61 AD3d 1385, 1386 [2009]; see also Smith v Reilly, 17 NY3d 895, 896 [2011]; Buicko v Neto, 112 AD3d 1046, 1046-1047 [2013]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that respect (see Buicko, 112 AD3d at 1047; Myers, 61 AD3d at 1386; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We therefore reverse the order, grant defendants’ motion, and dismiss the amended complaint.

Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J), entered November 15, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is *1602 unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she collided with a dog owned by defendants while riding her bicycle in front of defendants’ house. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that they lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the dog had a propensity to interfere with traffic (see Myers v MacCrea, 61 AD3d 1385, 1386 [2009]; see also Smith v Reilly, 17 NY3d 895, 896 [2011]; Buicko v Neto, 112 AD3d 1046, 1046-1047 [2013]). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that respect (see Buicko, 112 AD3d at 1047; Myers, 61 AD3d at 1386; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We therefore reverse the order, grant defendants’ motion, and dismiss the amended complaint.

Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Valentino, Whalen and DeJoseph, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.3d 1601, 993 N.Y.S.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dobinski-cheryl-v-lockhart-george-o-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack