From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Noreika v. Casciola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-04245.

Decided March 15, 2004.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated April 4, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Stewart H. Friedman (Kushel Horvat, Riverhead, N.Y. [Robert F. Horvat] of counsel), for appellants.

Moskowitz Passman Edelman (Pollack, Pollack, Isaac DeCicco, New York, N.Y. [A. Sheldon Edelman, Brian J. Isaac, and Chris Crawford] of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ., and ROBERT W. SCHMIDT.


DECISION ORDER

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

To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's propensities ( see Lugo v. Angle of Green, 268 A.D.2d 567; Bohm v. Nystrum Constr., 208 A.D.2d 668, 668-669). The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Sers v. Manasia, 280 A.D.2d 539, 540). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the dog had vicious propensities or whether the defendants knew of such propensities ( see Collier v. Zambito, N.Y.3d, N.Y. Slip Op 00960 [Feb. 17, 2004]; Fontanas v. Wilson, 300 A.D.2d 808, 809; Luts v. Weeks, 268 A.D.2d 568; Lugo v. Angle of Green, supra).

Moreover, with respect to the portion of the plaintiff's complaint sounding in common-law negligence, the defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants were negligent in failing to prevent a reasonably foreseeable injury ( see Ballard v. Campbell, 304 A.D.2d 780; Luts v. Weeks, supra; Althoff v. Lefebvre, 240 A.D.2d 604).

FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Noreika v. Casciola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 2004
5 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Noreika v. Casciola

Case Details

Full title:KEN NOREIKA, respondent, v. PHILIP CASCIOLA, ET AL., appellants

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 571 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 848

Citing Cases

Zelman v. Cosentino

The complaint was dismissed insofar as asserted against the deceased defendant, Anthony Cosentino, for the…

Sposito-Chtcherbinina v. Baranovich

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the…