From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moriano v. Schmidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1987
133 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

August 3, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

The evidence presented at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs (see, Lipsius v. White, 91 A.D.2d 271, 276), demonstrated that the defendants regularly kept the dog chained to a stake in their backyard, that the dog would growl and pull at his chain whenever anyone entered the backyard, that the defendant owner on one occasion warned another neighbor to stay away from the dog because it would bite, and that the attack by the dog on the infant plaintiff was severe and unprovoked. Under the circumstances, we find that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case with respect to both the dog's vicious propensities and the defendants' knowledge thereof (see, Brophy v. Columbia County Agric. Socy., 116 A.D.2d 873; Russell v Lepre, 99 A.D.2d 489; Lagoda v. Dorr, 28 A.D.2d 208). Thus the complaint was improperly dismissed. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Moriano v. Schmidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 3, 1987
133 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Moriano v. Schmidt

Case Details

Full title:NICOLE C. MORIANO, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, FRANCES…

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

Date published: Aug 3, 1987

Citations

133 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Sorel v. Iacobucci

Although this evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact as to the dog's known propensities so as to…

Sherman v. Torres

Where a pet owner knows, or should know, of his or her dog's vicious propensities, he or she is strictly…