Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Alicia GREENE, an Infant, by Phylip GREENE and Cheryl Lidlow, her Parents and Natural Guardians, and Phylip Greene and Cheryl Lidlow, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Robert BECKMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of John Conway, Deceased, Defendant-Appellant, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Alicia Greene when she was attacked by a dog owned by defendants Daniel Spencer and Sharon Spencer, who were then living with John Conway at Conway's home. Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Robert Beckman, as Administrator of the Estate of John Conway, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. Beckman established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof that Conway had no knowledge of the dog's alleged vicious propensities (see, Plennert v. Abel, 269 A.D.2d 796, 704 N.Y.S.2d 417). Evidence that Sharon Spencer had a close relationship with Conway and that she was aware of a previous incident involving the dog and another child is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to Conway's knowledge of the dog's alleged vicious propensities (see, Shannon v. Schultz, 259 A.D.2d 937, 938, 686 N.Y.S.2d 906, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 816, 697 N.Y.S.2d 563, 719 N.E.2d 924; Briggs v. Taggert, 255 A.D.2d 980, 981, 680 N.Y.S.2d 137).
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Robert Beckman, as Administrator of the Estate of John Conway, deceased, dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: September 28, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)