Saboe v. Splish Splash at Adventure Land, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saboe v. Splish Splash at Adventure Land, Inc.

272 A.D.2d 315, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4805

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

DecidedMay 1, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 315 (Saboe v. Splish Splash at Adventure Land, Inc.) 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

Saboe v. Splish Splash at Adventure Land, Inc., 272 A.D.2d 315, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated January 13, 1999, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior determination made in an order of the same court dated June 16, 1998, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated January 13, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action sounding in strict liability in tort and negligence to recover damages for injuries caused when he was bitten by a German Shepherd dog kept on the defendant’s premises. To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, a plaintiff must prove that the dog has vicious propensities and that the owner or the person in control of the premises where the dog was kept knew or should have known of such propensities (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572; Lugo v Angle of Green, 268 AD2d 567; White v Bruner, 233 AD2d 439). There exist triable issues of fact as to whether the subject dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendant (see, Coon v Holmes, 253 AD2d 731; Moriano v Schmidt, 133 AD2d 72). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, 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, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated January 13, 1999, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior determination made in an order of the same court dated June 16, 1998, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order dated January 13, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action sounding in strict liability in tort and negligence to recover damages for injuries caused when he was bitten by a German Shepherd dog kept on the defendant’s premises. To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, a plaintiff must prove that the dog has vicious propensities and that the owner or the person in control of the premises where the dog was kept knew or should have known of such propensities (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572; Lugo v Angle of Green, 268 AD2d 567; White v Bruner, 233 AD2d 439). There exist triable issues of fact as to whether the subject dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendant (see, Coon v Holmes, 253 AD2d 731; Moriano v Schmidt, 133 AD2d 72). Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, S. Miller, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 315, 707 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saboe-v-splish-splash-at-adventure-land-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack