§Why CasetextPricing

Wolfgang Doerr, Respondent,v.Daniel Goldsmith, Defendant, Julie Smith, Appellant.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Lauer v. City of New York

    95 N.Y.2d 95 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 545 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Medical Examiner's statutory duty to prepare post-autopsy reports and report to the District Attorney benefits "the public at large" and was not enacted for individual benefit

  2. Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.

    96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 396 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

  3. Collier v. Zambito

    1 N.Y.3d 444 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 314 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment when there “was no evidence that the dog's behavior was ever threatening or menacing” but rather, “the dog's actions—barking and running around—[were] consistent with normal canine behavior. Barking and running around are what dogs do.”

  4. Bard v. Jahnke

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 3440 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 222 times
    In Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592, 815 N.Y.S.2d 16, 848 N.E.2d 463 (2006), we expounded upon the relationship between ordinary negligence principles and the strict liability cause of action permitted by Collier and other prior decisions, concluding that strict liability's traditional status as the predominant theory of recovery for injuries caused by a domestic animal logically forecloses recovery under a theory of negligence.

  5. Petrone v. Fernandez

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4694 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 146 times
    In Petrone, the plaintiff mail carrier saw that there was no fence around the yard in front of the defendant's house, and the defendant's Rottweiler was lying unrestrained in the yard (see id. at 547–548, 883 N.Y.S.2d 164, 910 N.E.2d 993). Fearful of the dog, the plaintiff started walking away to her car, and when she turned around, she saw the dog running after her (see id.).

  6. Tobin v. Grossman

    24 N.Y.2d 609 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 302 times
    Denying recovery

  7. Gilson v. Metropolitan Opera

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 8846 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 98 times

    160. Argued October 19, 2005. Decided November 22, 2005. APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered January 11, 2005. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, (1) reversed, on the law, an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), which, insofar as appealed from, had denied a motion by defendant Metropolitan Opera to dismiss the complaint as against it or in the alternative for summary judgment dismissing

  8. Bernstein v. Penny

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2463 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 40 times
    In Bernstein, we held that the Appellate Division correctly disallowed the plaintiff's claim against the dog's owner and a toy store operated by the dog's owner "[s]ince there [was] no evidence... that the dog's owner had any knowledge of its vicious propensities" (Bernstein, 10 N.Y.3d at 788, 856 N.Y.S.2d 532, 886 N.E.2d 154).

  9. Smith v. Reilly

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7478 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 16 times

    2011-10-25 John F. SMITH and Lisa Smith, Respondents, v. Marijane REILLY, Appellant. Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Adam P. Mastroleo of counsel), for appellant. Brindisi, Murad, Brindisi, Pearlman, Julian & Pertz, Utica (Stephanie A. Palmer of counsel), for respondents. Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Adam P. Mastroleo of counsel), for appellant. Brindisi, Murad, Brindisi, Pearlman, Julian & Pertz, Utica (Stephanie A. Palmer of counsel), for

  10. Hosmer v. Carney

    228 N.Y. 73 (N.Y. 1920)   Cited 25 times

    Argued December 4, 1919 Decided February 24, 1920 Carlos C. Alden and Don Vroman for appellants. Hamilton Ward and Irving W. Cole for respondent. McLAUGHLIN, J. This action was brought to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate alleged to have been caused by the kick of a vicious horse. The complaint alleged that the defendants' testator purchased the horse "as a kicker * * *, knew that the said horse was a violent kicker and vicious in his habits and that he utterly failed and neglected