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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 25, 2008·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

Pincite

50 A.D.3d 1524 (Seiger v. Dercole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related