Opinion
Submitted March 22, 2000.
May 1, 2000.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated January 13, 1999, as, upon renewal and reargument, adhered to a prior determination made in an order of the same court dated June 16, 1998, denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Barry McTiernan Moore, New York, N.Y. (John V. Wynne of counsel), for appellant.
Munzel Napolitano, LLP, Riverhead, N.Y. (John J. Munzel and Karen C. Napolitano of counsel), for respondent.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated January 13, 1999, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action sounding in strict liability in tort and negligence to recover damages for injuries caused when he was bitten by a German Shepherd dog kept on the defendant's premises. To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, a plaintiff must prove that the dog has vicious propensities and that the owner or the person in control of the premises where the dog was kept knew or should have known of such propensities (see, Strunk v. Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572; Lugo v. Angle of Green, Inc., d/b/a Thirsty Beverage, 268 A.D.2d 567 [2d Dept., Jan. 31, 2000]; White v. Bruner, 233 A.D.2d 439). There exist triable issues of fact as to whether the subject dog had vicious propensities, and if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to the defendant (see, Coon v. Holmes, 253 A.D.2d 731; Moriano v. Schmidt, 133 A.D.2d 72).
RITTER, J.P., SULLIVAN, S. MILLER, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.