Han v. F & M Enterprise of Corona Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Han v. F & M Enterprise of Corona Corp.

293 A.D.2d 572, 740 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3737

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

DecidedApril 15, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 293 A.D.2d 572 (Han v. F & M Enterprise of Corona Corp.) 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

Han v. F & M Enterprise of Corona Corp., 293 A.D.2d 572, 740 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to [573]*573recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 1, 2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to recover in strict liability for a dog bite, the plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner or the person in control of the premises where the dog was kept knew or should have known of such propensities (see White v Bruner, 233 AD2d 439; Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572). Here, there exist triable issues of fact as to whether the subject dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendant (see Beljean v Maiuzzo, 256 AD2d 533; Coon v Holmes, 253 AD2d 731; Moriano v Schmidt, 133 AD2d 72). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to [573]*573recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated November 1, 2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks to recover in strict liability for a dog bite, the plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner or the person in control of the premises where the dog was kept knew or should have known of such propensities (see White v Bruner, 233 AD2d 439; Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572). Here, there exist triable issues of fact as to whether the subject dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendant (see Beljean v Maiuzzo, 256 AD2d 533; Coon v Holmes, 253 AD2d 731; Moriano v Schmidt, 133 AD2d 72). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 572, 740 N.Y.S.2d 227, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/han-v-f-m-enterprise-of-corona-corp-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack