Sposito-Chtcherbinina v. Baranovich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sposito-Chtcherbinina v. Baranovich

21 A.D.3d 946, 801 N.Y.S.2d 344

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 946 (Sposito-Chtcherbinina v. Baranovich) 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

Sposito-Chtcherbinina v. Baranovich, 21 A.D.3d 946, 801 N.Y.S.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 23, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In response to the defendants’ showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the defendants’ dog had vicious propensities and, if so, whether or not the defendants were aware of those vicious propensities before the alleged attack on the plaintiff (see Parente v Chavez, 17 AD3d 648 [2005]; cf. Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444 [2004]; Noreika v Casciola, 5 AD3d 571 [2004]; Slacin v Aquafredda, 2 AD3d 624 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated July 23, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

In response to the defendants’ showing of their entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the defendants’ dog had vicious propensities and, if so, whether or not the defendants were aware of those vicious propensities before the alleged attack on the plaintiff (see Parente v Chavez, 17 AD3d 648 [2005]; cf. Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444 [2004]; Noreika v Casciola, 5 AD3d 571 [2004]; Slacin v Aquafredda, 2 AD3d 624 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 946, 801 N.Y.S.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sposito-chtcherbinina-v-baranovich-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack