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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to [573] recover 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] recover 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.

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

293 A.D.2d 572 (Han v. F & M Enterprise of Corona Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related