Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a property owner in a personal injury action alleging strict liability for dog bites. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the dogs possessed "vicious propensities," noting that barking at passersby and jumping on a fence constitutes normal canine behavior rather than evidence of dangerous tendencies. Consequently, the property owner could not be held strictly liable under New York law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dina Realty can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a dog on its premises under New York law
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the second cause of action against Dina Realty
Holdings
- Summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action against Dina Realty was proper because Dina Realty lacked notice of the dogs' vicious propensities and therefore could not be held strictly liable.
Key quotations
“To recover against a property owner on a theory of strict liability for injuries caused by a dog, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the owner: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises, (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the property owner to remove or confine the dog.”
Factual background
The plaintiff, Josette Johnson, was injured when two dogs owned by Gerardo Romaro jumped on her while she was walking on a sidewalk. Romaro was moving the dogs, without leashes, from a van into a fenced vacant lot owned by Dina Realty, LLC and leased to Laura Meneses. The plaintiff sued for personal injuries, asserting strict liability against Dina Realty.
Procedural history
The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court, Kings County's order dated September 21, 2023, which granted Dina Realty's motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action alleging strict liability.