Oerlemans v. Cornish

Decision Date30 September 2005
Docket NumberCA 05-00619.
PartiesONNO DAG OERLEMANS et al., Respondents, v. MYLES CORNISH et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (John G. Ringrose, A.J.), entered June 2, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff Onno Dag Oerlemans when defendants' dog allegedly collided with him while he was riding his bicycle, causing him to fall to the ground. Contrary to the contention of defendants, Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendants met their initial burden by establishing that their "dog was neither vicious nor interfered with traffic" (Elmore v. Wukovits, 288 AD2d 875, 875 [2001]; see Sinon v. Anastasi, 244 AD2d 973 [1997]), plaintiffs proffered sufficient evidence in opposition to the motion to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendants' contention that the court abused its discretion in relying upon an affidavit submitted by plaintiffs in surreply to defendants' motion is raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not properly before us (see generally Ciesinski v. Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985 [1994]). In any event, defendants' contention lacks merit (see generally Barbuto v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 305 AD2d 623, 623-624 [2003]; 269 Fulton Corp. v. H.A.B. Realty Assoc., 179 AD2d 752, 753 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 756 [1992]).

Present — Green, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Lawton, JJ.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Harms v. TLC Health Network
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 28, 2023
    ... ... defendants submitted in surreply is not properly before us ... because it is raised for the first time on appeal (see ... Oerlemans v Cornish, 21 A.D.3d 1308, 1309 [4th Dept ... 2005]; Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 A.D.2d 984, ... 985 [4th Dept 1994]). In any event, the court ... ...
  • Onsite Companies, Inc. v. Comfort
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 30, 2005

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT