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.
Ernesto ARBANIL, appellant, v. Charles E. FLANNERY, et al., respondents, et al., defendant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty III, J.), dated November 17, 2004, which granted the motion of the defendants Charles E. Flannery and Annmarie C. Flannery for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the respondents.
The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when a dog owned by the defendants Charles E. Flannery and Annmarie Flannery (hereinafter the defendants) ran out into the street from their property, causing the plaintiff, who was riding a mountain bike, to make a sudden stop and fall to the ground. At the time of the accident, the local ordinance stated that it was unlawful for owners of dogs to allow their dogs to be “at large” or to “chase or otherwise harass any person in such a manner as to cause reasonable intimidation or to put such person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm or injury” (Code of the Town of East Hampton §§ 86-5[B][1] and 86-5[B][4] ). It was not uncommon for the defendants' dog to roam around within two blocks of their residence. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in the manner in which they kept their dog in that they violated the local ordinance.
Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges a cause of action sounding in ordinary negligence, the salient issue is not whether the defendant had prior notice of the dog's vicious propensities. Rather, the issue is whether the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by negligently failing to prevent a foreseeable injury (see Colarusso v. Dunne, 286 A.D.2d 37, 732 N.Y.S.2d 424; Silva v. Micelli, 178 A.D.2d 521, 577 N.Y.S.2d 444). Under the facts of this case, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Faller v. Schwartz, 303 A.D.2d 624, 756 N.Y.S.2d 641).
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 18, 2006
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)