Rico v. Cleary

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rico v. Cleary

126 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41859

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 714 (Rico v. Cleary) 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

Rico v. Cleary, 126 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Patrick Cleary appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated July 29, 1985, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the plaintiffs action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The infant plaintiff was attacked by a dog owned by tenants of the defendant landlord Patrick Cleary. The attack occurred at premises owned and leased by the defendant Cleary to the defendant Michael Morrison, pursuant to an oral lease. A review of the affidavit of the defendant Cleary, the transcripts of his examination before trial and the transcripts of the plaintiff Francine Rico’s examination before trial demonstrates that the defendant Cleary had no prior knowledge of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities. Having failed to adduce any evidence of prior knowledge on the part of the defendant Cleary of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities, there is no triable issue of fact, and summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the defendant Cleary dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Spatt, 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 Patrick Cleary appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated July 29, 1985, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the plaintiffs action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The infant plaintiff was attacked by a dog owned by tenants of the defendant landlord Patrick Cleary. The attack occurred at premises owned and leased by the defendant Cleary to the defendant Michael Morrison, pursuant to an oral lease. A review of the affidavit of the defendant Cleary, the transcripts of his examination before trial and the transcripts of the plaintiff Francine Rico’s examination before trial demonstrates that the defendant Cleary had no prior knowledge of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities. Having failed to adduce any evidence of prior knowledge on the part of the defendant Cleary of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities, there is no triable issue of fact, and summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the defendant Cleary dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 714, 511 N.Y.S.2d 126, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rico-v-cleary-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack