Opinion
1039 CA 14-00100.
10-03-2014
Cheryl DOBINSKI, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. George O. LOCKHART and Milagros Lockhart, Defendants–Appellants.
Walsh, Roberts & Grace, Buffalo (Mark P. Della Posta of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants. Dennis J. Bischof, LLC, Williamsville (Dennis J. Bischof of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
Walsh, Roberts & Grace, Buffalo (Mark P. Della Posta of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.
Dennis J. Bischof, LLC, Williamsville (Dennis J. Bischof of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she collided with a dog owned by defendants while riding her bicycle in front of defendants' house. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that they lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the dog had a propensity to interfere with traffic (see Myers v. MacCrea, 61 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 876 N.Y.S.2d 806 ; see also Smith v. Reilly, 17 N.Y.3d 895, 896, 933 N.Y.S.2d 645, 957 N.E.2d 1149 ; Buicko v. Neto, 112 A.D.3d 1046, 1046–1047, 976 N.Y.S.2d 610 ). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that respect (see Buicko, 112 A.D.3d at 1047, 976 N.Y.S.2d 610 ; Myers, 61 A.D.3d at 1386, 876 N.Y.S.2d 806 ; see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). We therefore reverse the order, grant defendants' motion, and dismiss the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.