From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.).


Plaintiff's fall and injuries were precipitated by his own actions, rather than those of defendant's dog. While the dog had aggressive propensities, plaintiff, although aware of those propensities, nevertheless attempted to approach the dog armed with a "two-by-four" even though the dog could have been easily avoided. We note, moreover, that defendants plainly discharged whatever duty they had to protect plaintiff from the dog since, at the time of the subject incident, the dog was chained so that he could not reach plaintiff and was being additionally restrained by one of defendant's employees.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.


Summaries of

Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1998
251 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Seiden v. A. Silmac Glass Corp.

Case Details

Full title:JEROME R. SEIDEN et al., Appellants, v. A. SILMAC GLASS CORP. et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 141 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 316

Citing Cases

Gordon v. Roselli

"[I]t is well-established that the doctrine of implied assumption of the risk may be a viable defense in…

Gervais v. Laino

Moreover, there is insufficient proof to establish that plaintiff assumed the risk of her injuries, as a…