Wittenberg v. Gabriellini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wittenberg v. Gabriellini

158 A.D.2d 302, 550 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1081

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 302 (Wittenberg v. Gabriellini) 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

Wittenberg v. Gabriellini, 158 A.D.2d 302, 550 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

This negligence action is based on an injury sustained in an attack by a dog owned by defendant Gabriellini and held on a leash by defendant Youner. The record discloses issues of fact sufficient to defeat defendant Youner’s motion for summary judgment. In an examination before trial, defendant Gabriellini testified that he had warned defendant Youner numerous times that the dog was very difficult to control and that the dog had a tendency to provoke encounters with other dogs.

Therefore a factual issue exists as to whether defendant Youner had prior knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities to attack people and as to whether, after being warned that she could not control this powerful dog, Youner behaved negligently in standing with the dog on a sidewalk on which there were pedestrians. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

This negligence action is based on an injury sustained in an attack by a dog owned by defendant Gabriellini and held on a leash by defendant Youner. The record discloses issues of fact sufficient to defeat defendant Youner’s motion for summary judgment. In an examination before trial, defendant Gabriellini testified that he had warned defendant Youner numerous times that the dog was very difficult to control and that the dog had a tendency to provoke encounters with other dogs.

Therefore a factual issue exists as to whether defendant Youner had prior knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities to attack people and as to whether, after being warned that she could not control this powerful dog, Youner behaved negligently in standing with the dog on a sidewalk on which there were pedestrians. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 302, 550 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wittenberg-v-gabriellini-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack