Weipert v. Oldfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weipert v. Oldfield

298 A.D.2d 974, 748 N.Y.S.2d 123, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9018

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 974 (Weipert v. Oldfield) 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

Weipert v. Oldfield, 298 A.D.2d 974, 748 N.Y.S.2d 123, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Livingston County (Alonzo, J.), entered October 23, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants David Oldfield and Barbara Oldfield seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by her son on her own property when he was attacked by a dog owned by a tenant of David Oldfield and Barbara Oldfield (defendants). Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. It is undisputed that the incident did not occur on defendants’ property, and thus defendants owed no duty of care to plaintiff’s son (see Terrio v Daggett, 208 AD2d 1163; see also Phillips v Coffee To Go, 269 AD2d 123, 124; Shen v Kornienko, 253 AD2d 396). Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Livingston County (Alonzo, J.), entered October 23, 2001, which granted the motion of defendants David Oldfield and Barbara Oldfield seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by her son on her own property when he was attacked by a dog owned by a tenant of David Oldfield and Barbara Oldfield (defendants). Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. It is undisputed that the incident did not occur on defendants’ property, and thus defendants owed no duty of care to plaintiff’s son (see Terrio v Daggett, 208 AD2d 1163; see also Phillips v Coffee To Go, 269 AD2d 123, 124; Shen v Kornienko, 253 AD2d 396). Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 974, 748 N.Y.S.2d 123, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weipert-v-oldfield-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack