Plennert v. Abel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Plennert v. Abel

280 A.D.2d 960, 719 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 960 (Plennert v. Abel) 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

Plennert v. Abel, 280 A.D.2d 960, 719 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Janet Horton (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her. Plaintiffs allege that defendant was negligent in her supervision of the infant plaintiff, Steven Matthew Plennert, who was attacked by a dog owned by neighbors. Defendant met her burden of establishing that she had no actual or constructive notice that the dog posed a danger to the child (see generally, Harrell v County of Nassau, 275 AD2d 440), and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact in that regard. Indeed, we note that, on a prior appeal, we held that the dog owners were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them because they established that they had no knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog, and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact (see, Plennert v Abel, 269 AD2d 796). Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact whether defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in permitting Steven to accompany her 16-year-old son to the home where the attack occurred. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Janet Horton (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her. Plaintiffs allege that defendant was negligent in her supervision of the infant plaintiff, Steven Matthew Plennert, who was attacked by a dog owned by neighbors. Defendant met her burden of establishing that she had no actual or constructive notice that the dog posed a danger to the child (see generally, Harrell v County of Nassau, 275 AD2d 440), and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact in that regard. Indeed, we note that, on a prior appeal, we held that the dog owners were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them because they established that they had no knowledge of the vicious propensities of the dog, and plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact (see, Plennert v Abel, 269 AD2d 796). Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact whether defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in permitting Steven to accompany her 16-year-old son to the home where the attack occurred. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 960, 719 N.Y.S.2d 918, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plennert-v-abel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack