Seiger v. Dercole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Seiger v. Dercole

50 A.D.3d 1524, 856 N.Y.S.2d 771

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

DecidedApril 25, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1524 (Seiger v. Dercole) 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

Seiger v. Dercole, 50 A.D.3d 1524, 856 N.Y.S.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David M. Barry, J.), entered June 14, 2007. The order granted the motion of defendant Max Properties, Ltd. for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when a dog owned by defendant Vincent Dercole attacked plaintiff and his dog as they were walking on a street one block south of the premises that Dercole leased from defendant Max Properties, Ltd. (defendant). We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it. “Because the incident did not occur on defendant’s property . . .[,] defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiffl ]” (Ruffin v Dykes, 37 AD3d 1191 [2007]; see Weipert v Oldfield, 298 AD2d 974 [2002]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Smith, Centra, Feradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David M. Barry, J.), entered June 14, 2007. The order granted the motion of defendant Max Properties, Ltd. for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when a dog owned by defendant Vincent Dercole attacked plaintiff and his dog as they were walking on a street one block south of the premises that Dercole leased from defendant Max Properties, Ltd. (defendant). We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against it. “Because the incident did not occur on defendant’s property . . .[,] defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiffl ]” (Ruffin v Dykes, 37 AD3d 1191 [2007]; see Weipert v Oldfield, 298 AD2d 974 [2002]). Present—Scudder, EJ., Smith, Centra, Feradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1524, 856 N.Y.S.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seiger-v-dercole-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack