Grubenmann v. Wagner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grubenmann v. Wagner

300 A.D.2d 443, 751 N.Y.S.2d 550

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 443 (Grubenmann v. Wagner) 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

Grubenmann v. Wagner, 300 A.D.2d 443, 751 N.Y.S.2d 550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), [444]*444dated November 14, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, the plaintiffs seek to recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, they must prove that the dog has vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of such propensities (see Craig v Reed, 272 AD2d 288; Lugo v Angle of Green, 268 AD2d 567).

The defendant’s moving papers established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s dog had vicious propensities or whether he knew or should have known of such alleged propensities. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), [444]*444dated November 14, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Where, as here, the plaintiffs seek to recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, they must prove that the dog has vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of such propensities (see Craig v Reed, 272 AD2d 288; Lugo v Angle of Green, 268 AD2d 567).

The defendant’s moving papers established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s dog had vicious propensities or whether he knew or should have known of such alleged propensities. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 443, 751 N.Y.S.2d 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grubenmann-v-wagner-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack