MD v. Lisa R. Chase, Defendant-Respondent. (2026)

Per Curiam.

Judgment (Allison R. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about December 4, 2025, affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages arising from an altercation between her dog and a dog owned by defendant. Upon review of the evidence, we find no basis to disturb the trial court's dismissal of the complaint (Claridge Gardens v Menotti, 160 AD2d 544, 545 [1990]). A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing that defendant knew or should have known that her dog had vicious propensities (see Flanders v Goodfellow, 44 NY3d 57 [2025]). The court, as factfinder, reasonably rejected plaintiff's evidence on this issue, namely, an incident involving defendant's dog that occurred some six years earlier, and rationally concluded that plaintiff failed to establish that said incident "arose out of a violent event such that defendant would have been on notice for vicious propensities."

Nor did plaintiff meet her burden establishing that defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances (see Flanders v Goodfellow, 44 NY3d at 68). In this regard, we find no basis to disturb the court's express finding that plaintiff's dog "was the aggressor in the dog attack."

Plaintiff's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected.

All concur.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the Court

Decision Date: September 28, 2026