From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. Brischoux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The infant plaintiff was injured when, while playing in the defendants' yard, the defendants' dog ran at him and they collided. In response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence establishing either the existence of a vicious propensity on the part of the dog, or the defendants' knowledge of any such vicious propensity. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in denying the motion ( see, Althoff v. Lefebvre, 240 A.D.2d 604).

Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Butler v. Brischoux

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 17, 1997
244 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Butler v. Brischoux

Case Details

Full title:JAKE BUTLER et al., Respondents, v. PHILIP BRISCHOUX et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 17, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 128

Citing Cases

Basile v. Salka

In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities, a dog's owner is not…