Virella v. Einhorn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Virella v. Einhorn

285 A.D.2d 641, 728 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7680

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

DecidedJuly 30, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 641 (Virella v. Einhorn) 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

Virella v. Einhorn, 285 A.D.2d 641, 728 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), entered August 24, 2000, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case to dismiss the complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the dog which caused the injured plaintiff’s injuries had vicious propensities known to the defendants (see, Sers v Manasia, 280 AD2d 539; Maher v C & A Auto Parts, 279 AD2d 459; Velazquez v Carns, 244 AD2d 620; DeVaul v Carvigo Inc., 138 AD2d 669).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Crane, 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, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), entered August 24, 2000, which, upon granting the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the plaintiffs’ case to dismiss the complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that the dog which caused the injured plaintiff’s injuries had vicious propensities known to the defendants (see, Sers v Manasia, 280 AD2d 539; Maher v C & A Auto Parts, 279 AD2d 459; Velazquez v Carns, 244 AD2d 620; DeVaul v Carvigo Inc., 138 AD2d 669).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 641, 728 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virella-v-einhorn-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack