Opinion
Argued April 29, 1999
January 31, 2000
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered October 13, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Colligan Hickey, Purchase, N.Y. (Carol R. Finocchio and Neil Fishman of counsel), for appellants.
O'Connor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson Collins, White Plains, N.Y. (Montgomery L. Effinger of counsel), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in denying their motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie case establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff, who sued on a theory of strict liability, established the existence of factual questions as to whether the defendants' dog had vicious propensities, and, if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to them (see, Moriano v. Schmidt, 133 A.D.2d 72 ; cf., Bohm v. Nystrum Constr., 208 A.D.2d 668 ; see generally,Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 ; Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 ).
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, LUCIANO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.