Summary
This Appellate Division decision affirms the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff's personal injury complaint against a defendant who was merely a guest at the premises where a dog attack occurred. The court applied New York's vicious propensity notice rule, holding that liability for dog bites generally requires ownership or control of the animal, which the defendant lacked. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendant's duty of care.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff with respect to the dog under a negligence standard
- Whether summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to duty of care
Holdings
- The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant owed a duty of care; therefore the defendant was not liable.
- Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff did not present any genuine issue of material fact regarding duty of care.
Factual background
In July 2019 the plaintiff was attacked by a dog owned by a non‑party at the non‑party’s residence. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging negligence for opening a door that allowed the dog to enter the house where the attack occurred. The defendant, who was also a guest at the premises and was bitten, moved for summary judgment asserting she did not own, possess, harbor, or exercise control over the dog.
Procedural history
The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence after being bitten by a dog owned by a non‑party. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting she did not own, harbor, or control the dog. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted summary judgment and entered a judgment on July 24, 2023. The plaintiff appealed.