Egan v. Hom
| Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Parties | Janis EGAN, et al., respondents, v. Donna HOM, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
74 A.D.3d 1133
Janis EGAN, et al., respondents,
v.
Donna HOM, et al., appellants.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 22, 2010.
Cullen & Dykman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph D. Delfino and Bryan Lockart of counsel), for appellants.
Duffy & Duffy, Uniondale, N.Y. (Michael A. Santo of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, RANDALL T. ENG, and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), dated July 1, 2009, as denied those branches of their motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and fourth causes of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, and fourth causes of action are granted.
The injured plaintiff and her husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants, who are their relatives, contending that the defendants' dog caused the injured plaintiff to sustain personal injuries when she allegedly became entangled in the dog's chain, which was attached to a dog "runner," while the dog was "running around" the defendants' yard. The plaintiffs alleged four causes of action in their complaint: common-law negligence; strict liability based on the dog's known vicious propensities; nuisance due to the defendants' failure to control their dog; and the husband's derivative
Following the completion of discovery and the filing of the note of issue, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that a cause of action alleging common-law negligence does not lie against dog owners for injuries caused by their dog, and that they also could not be held liable under a theory of strict liability because there was no evidence of vicious propensities. The plaintiffs opposed the motion. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, except as to the third cause of action alleging nuisance. The defendants appeal, and we reverse insofar as appealed from.
" '[W]hen harm is caused by a domestic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trigoso v. Correa
...visibly intoxicated or that its sale of alcohol to him had no reasonable or practical connection to the accident (see Dugan v. Olson, 74 A.D.3d at 1133, 906 N.Y.S.2d 277 ).Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that Danu met its prima facie burden by demonstrating that the driver was ......
-
Cintorrino v. Rowsell, 2017–04856
...does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal" ( Egan v. Hom, 74 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 905 N.Y.S.2d 624 ; see Doerr v. Goldsmith, 25 N.Y.3d 1114, 1116, 14 N.Y.S.3d 726, 35 N.E.3d 796 ; Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d at 125–......
-
Ostrovsky v. Stern
...does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal” (Egan v. Hom, 74 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 905 N.Y.S.2d 624 ; see Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d at 125–126, 967 N.Y.S.2d 658, 989 N.E.2d 940 ; Petrone v. Fernandez, 12 N.Y.3d 546,......
-
Vallejo v. Ebert
...does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal” (Egan v. Hom, 74 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 905 N.Y.S.2d 624; see Hastings v. Sauve, 21 N.Y.3d 122, 125–126, 967 N.Y.S.2d 658, 989 N.E.2d 940; Petrone v. Fernandez, 12 N.Y.3d at 5......
-
Overruling by implication and the consequent burden upon bench and bar.
...by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities." (citations omitted)); Egan v. Hom, 74 A.D.3d 1133, 1134, 905 N.Y.S.2d 624, 625 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010) ("Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for......