Lier v. Bloomingdale Bros.
274 A.D. 918, 83 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 8, 1948·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence whatever showing that the dog in question had previously manifested vicious propensities or that defendant had any actual or constructive notice thereof.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs and disbursements to appellant.
Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.
Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint dismissed. [See post, p. 1032.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lier v. Bloomingdale Bros., 274 A.D. 918, 83 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4042 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).
274 A.D. 918 (Lier v. Bloomingdale Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Machacado v. City of New York
80 Misc. 2d 889 (New York Supreme Court, 1975)
Lagoda v. Dorr
28 A.D.2d 208 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)