Przybylski v. Ommeren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Przybylski v. Ommeren

239 A.D.2d 330, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611

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

DecidedMay 5, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D.2d 330 (Przybylski v. Ommeren) 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

Przybylski v. Ommeren, 239 A.D.2d 330, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Robert Van Ommeren appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated April 15, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Helena Przybylski was attacked and bitten by a pit bull dog. Both she and her husband commenced the instant action against several defendants, including the appellant, to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained in the attack.

The appellant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he "did not own, keep, harbor or control the dog in question”. The plaintiffs opposed, and the Supreme Court properly denied, the appellant’s motion on the ground that the essential facts were within his "knowledge and control” and discovery had not yet taken place (see, Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792; Yu v Forero, 184 AD2d 506). Discovery is to proceed forthwith in order to expedite resolution of the material issues of fact at bar. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, 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 defendant Robert Van Ommeren appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated April 15, 1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Helena Przybylski was attacked and bitten by a pit bull dog. Both she and her husband commenced the instant action against several defendants, including the appellant, to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained in the attack.

The appellant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he "did not own, keep, harbor or control the dog in question”. The plaintiffs opposed, and the Supreme Court properly denied, the appellant’s motion on the ground that the essential facts were within his "knowledge and control” and discovery had not yet taken place (see, Baron v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 143 AD2d 792; Yu v Forero, 184 AD2d 506). Discovery is to proceed forthwith in order to expedite resolution of the material issues of fact at bar. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 330, 657 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/przybylski-v-ommeren-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack