Erosa v. Mendoza

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Erosa v. Mendoza

186 Misc. 2d 485, 719 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 529

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 186 Misc. 2d 485 (Erosa v. Mendoza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erosa v. Mendoza, 186 Misc. 2d 485, 719 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered on or about July 9, 1999 affirmed, with $10 costs.

Considering, among other factors, the claimed presence of a “Beware of Dog” sign on the defendants’ residential premises, the nature and severity of the facial wounds sustained by the [486]*486infant plaintiff as a result of the bites inflicted by defendants’ dog, and the statements attributed to and admissions made by defendants concerning the dog’s prior aggressive conduct, we agree with Civil Court that triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendants (see, Gibbs v Grenadier Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 171; Beljean v Maiuzzo, 256 AD2d 533; Beck v Morse, 271 AD2d 916).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered on or about July 9, 1999 affirmed, with $10 costs.

Considering, among other factors, the claimed presence of a “Beware of Dog” sign on the defendants’ residential premises, the nature and severity of the facial wounds sustained by the [486]*486infant plaintiff as a result of the bites inflicted by defendants’ dog, and the statements attributed to and admissions made by defendants concerning the dog’s prior aggressive conduct, we agree with Civil Court that triable issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendants (see, Gibbs v Grenadier Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 171; Beljean v Maiuzzo, 256 AD2d 533; Beck v Morse, 271 AD2d 916).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 Misc. 2d 485, 719 N.Y.S.2d 792, 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erosa-v-mendoza-nyappterm-2000.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack