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.
Susan DEBELLAS, appellant, v. Ralph VERRILL, et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered December 11, 2006, which, upon so much of an order of the same court dated October 2, 2006, as granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff allegedly fell to the ground and sustained injuries to her leg and foot when two dogs, owned separately by the defendants, collided with her while running with each other at an off-leash area of Coindre Hall Park in the Town of Huntington. “[T]he owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal's vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” (Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444, 446, 775 N.Y.S.2d 205, 807 N.E.2d 254). “Vicious propensities include the ‘propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation’ ” (id., quoting Dickson v. McCoy, 39 N.Y. 400, 403). On their motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the cause of action sounding in strict liability by demonstrating that their dogs had never collided with people on any prior occasion (see Rodrigues v. Norte, 40 A.D.3d 1068, 834 N.Y.S.2d 879; Cameron v. Harari, 19 A.D.3d 631, 797 N.Y.S.2d 295). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Further, the plaintiff may not recover on her common-law negligence cause of action (see Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592, 599, 815 N.Y.S.2d 16, 848 N.E.2d 463; Sherman v. Torres, 35 A.D.3d 436, 825 N.Y.S.2d 253; Claps v. Animal Haven, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 715, 716, 825 N.Y.S.2d 125). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 22, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)