Rodrigues v. Norte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodrigues v. Norte

40 A.D.3d 1068, 834 N.Y.S.2d 879

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

DecidedMay 29, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 1068 (Rodrigues v. Norte) 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

Rodrigues v. Norte, 40 A.D.3d 1068, 834 N.Y.S.2d 879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 3, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they neither knew nor should have known that their dog had any propensity to bump into people (see Cameron v Harari, 19 AD3d 631 [2005]; Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604 [1997]; cf. Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zelman v Cosentino, 22 AD3d 486 [2005]; Althoff v Lefebvre, supra). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Carni, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated January 3, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied their cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they neither knew nor should have known that their dog had any propensity to bump into people (see Cameron v Harari, 19 AD3d 631 [2005]; Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604 [1997]; cf. Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zelman v Cosentino, 22 AD3d 486 [2005]; Althoff v Lefebvre, supra). Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 1068, 834 N.Y.S.2d 879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodrigues-v-norte-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack