From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Provorse v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 9, 2001
288 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

(1117) CA 01-00779.

November 9, 2001.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, WISNER, BURNS AND LAWTON, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendant L. David Curtis, d/b/a Canoe Country, seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him for injuries sustained by decedent when Curtis's dog caused her to fall and fracture her hip. Even assuming, arguendo, that Curtis met his initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised issues of fact whether Curtis's dog exhibited a vicious propensity and whether Curtis had knowledge of that propensity ( cf., Plennert v. Abel, 269 A.D.2d 796). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted proof that Curtis was aware that his dog would "muzzle greet" Curtis's customers by touching them on the arm or leg with an open mouth while following them on a homemade dog run into the common hallway of Curtis's building. Liability involving an animal "is predicated upon the owner's keeping of the animal, despite his knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities" ( Lynch v. Nacewicz, 126 A.D.2d 708, 709 ; see, Plennert v. Abel, supra). Although Curtis's dog may have been acting in a playful manner, the term "vicious propensity" includes a propensity to act in a manner that may endanger the safety of another, whether playful or not ( see, Mitura v. Roy, 174 A.D.2d 1020; see also, Anderson v. Carduner, 279 A.D.2d 369, 369-370).


Summaries of

Provorse v. Curtis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 9, 2001
288 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Provorse v. Curtis

Case Details

Full title:ELMER PROVORSE, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF NETTIE…

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

Date published: Nov 9, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 832 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

Univ. Twrs. v. Gibson

A vicious nature or propensity is defined as "the tendency of a dog to do an act which might endanger…

Stalzer v. Deabrue

” Plaintiff then examined Tommy, but found no injuries. About 10 seconds later, Hunter jumped on Tommy a…