From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gill v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 29, 1988
136 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

January 29, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Seneca County, Rosenbloom, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly granted summary judgment to defendant landlord dismissing plaintiff's action for damages caused when she was bitten by a dog harbored by defendant's tenant. In support of her motion, defendant landlord submitted sworn testimony at an examination before trial that she had no knowledge of any vicious propensities of her tenant's dog. Plaintiff has submitted no proof to the contrary (see, Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572). The facts that the dog was kept enclosed in a yard or chained, particularly in view of the town's leash law, and that it strained on its chain and barked when people approached the premises, are insufficient to create an inference that the dog was vicious. The facts in the case of Fontecchio v Esposito ( 108 A.D.2d 780), cited by plaintiff, differ substantially from the facts averred by plaintiff. In Fontecchio (supra), unlike here, before the incident giving rise to the cause of action the dog not only growled and lunged at people, but charged a mailman and bit his mail pouch, continuing his attack until he was pulled away by the owner.


Summaries of

Gill v. Welch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 29, 1988
136 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Gill v. Welch

Case Details

Full title:ANN GILL, Appellant, v. LOUIS D. WELCH, Respondent, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1988

Citations

136 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Plue v. Lent

This plaintiffs failed to do. The affidavits that they submitted simply set forth instances of alleged…

Toher v. Duchnycz

nant's dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice…