Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp.

251 A.D.2d 141, 674 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6900

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

DecidedJune 16, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 141 (Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp.) 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

Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp., 251 A.D.2d 141, 674 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered April 15, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs fall and injuries were precipitated by his own actions, rather than those of defendants’ dog. While the dog had aggressive propensities, plaintiff, although aware of those propensities, nevertheless attempted to approach the dog armed with a “two-by-four” even though the dog could have been easily avoided. We note, moreover, that defendants plainly discharged whatever duty they had to protect plaintiff from the dog since, at the time of the subject incident, the dog was chained so that he could not reach plaintiff and was being additionally restrained by one of defendant’s employees. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered April 15, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs fall and injuries were precipitated by his own actions, rather than those of defendants’ dog. While the dog had aggressive propensities, plaintiff, although aware of those propensities, nevertheless attempted to approach the dog armed with a “two-by-four” even though the dog could have been easily avoided. We note, moreover, that defendants plainly discharged whatever duty they had to protect plaintiff from the dog since, at the time of the subject incident, the dog was chained so that he could not reach plaintiff and was being additionally restrained by one of defendant’s employees. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 141, 674 N.Y.S.2d 316, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seiden-v-a-silmac-glass-corp-nyappdiv-1998.