Lau Lee Chan v. Mikhalov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lau Lee Chan v. Mikhalov

279 A.D.2d 456, 719 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 181

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 456 (Lau Lee Chan v. Mikhalov) 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

Lau Lee Chan v. Mikhalov, 279 A.D.2d 456, 719 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated March 30, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Rita Mushaev, as mother and natural guardian of Laura Mushaev, and Rita Mushaev individually, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

In opposition to the respondents’ motion, in which they made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with proof sufficient to raise an issue of fact. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the dog which allegedly caused the injuries to the plaintiff Lau Lee Chan had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any vicious propensities, or that the respondents exercised any dominion or control over it.

We note that the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ daughter in opposition to the motion should not have been considered, since the plaintiffs did not answer the respondents’ demand for notice witnesses, and offered no excuse for their failure to do so (see, Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, 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, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated March 30, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Rita Mushaev, as mother and natural guardian of Laura Mushaev, and Rita Mushaev individually, which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

In opposition to the respondents’ motion, in which they made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with proof sufficient to raise an issue of fact. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the dog which allegedly caused the injuries to the plaintiff Lau Lee Chan had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any vicious propensities, or that the respondents exercised any dominion or control over it.

We note that the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ daughter in opposition to the motion should not have been considered, since the plaintiffs did not answer the respondents’ demand for notice witnesses, and offered no excuse for their failure to do so (see, Ortega v New York City Tr. Auth., 262 AD2d 470). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 456, 719 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lau-lee-chan-v-mikhalov-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack