Opinion
1386 CA 15-00904.
12-23-2015
Sonya HARGRO, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Scott ROSS, Individually and Doing Business As Uncorked, Defendant–Appellant.
Law Offices of John Wallace, Buffalo (Nancy A. Long of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Chiacchia & Fleming, LLP, Hamburg (Daniel J. Chiacchia of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Law Offices of John Wallace, Buffalo (Nancy A. Long of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Chiacchia & Fleming, LLP, Hamburg (Daniel J. Chiacchia of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained from a dog bite. Plaintiff was inside defendant's restaurant at the time of the incident, and the dog allegedly was owned by another patron. Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion insofar as plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in failing to maintain a safe premises. Plaintiff cannot recover for her alleged injuries based upon the alleged negligence of defendant in failing to maintain a safe premises, and may recover only under a theory of strict liability (see Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., 40 A.D.3d 224, 224, 834 N.Y.S.2d 173, affd. 10 N.Y.3d 787, 856 N.Y.S.2d 532, 886 N.E.2d 154; Claps v. Animal Haven, Inc., 34 A.D.3d 715, 716, 825 N.Y.S.2d 125). The court also erred in denying defendant's motion insofar as plaintiff alleges that he violated a provision of the State Sanitary Code regarding the presence of animals in food service establishments (see 10 NYCRR 14–1.183). A violation of a regulation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is not a basis for imposing liability herein (see Petrone v. Fernandez, 12 N.Y.3d 546, 550, 883 N.Y.S.2d 164, 910 N.E.2d 993).
We further conclude that the court erred in denying defendant's motion with respect to plaintiff's strict liability claim. Here, defendant met his initial burden by establishing that he lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the dog had any vicious propensities (see Doerr v. Goldsmith, 25 N.Y.3d 1114, 1116, 14 N.Y.S.3d 726, 35 N.E.3d 796), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that respect (see id.; see also Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444, 447, 775 N.Y.S.2d 205, 807 N.E.2d 254; Buicko v. Neto, 112 A.D.3d 1046, 1047, 976 N.Y.S.2d 610).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, defendant's motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.