People v. Horvath
| Decision Date | 16 June 1994 |
| Citation | 613 N.Y.S.2d 721,205 A.D.2d 927 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James HORVATH Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward J. Carroll, Kingston, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty. (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.
Before CARDONA, P.J., and CREW, CASEY, WEISS and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), entered December 14, 1993, which affirmed an order of the Village Court of the Village of Ellenville in favor of petitioner.
On August 6, 1993 a male Rottweiler dog owned by respondent, barking fiercely, broke loose from its chain and charged across the street toward two young children who were walking a small Pekinese dog on a leash. The unprovoked attack caused the children to flee in hysteria to safety, abandoning the Pekinese. The Rottweiler seized the small dog and mauled it to death. As a result of the attack, a complaint was filed pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law § 121, and following a hearing Village Court determined that the Rottweiler was a dangerous dog and ordered it destroyed. Following affirmance by County Court, this appeal ensued.
Respondent contends that because the complaint fails to specifically allege an attack upon a person or an attack, chasing or worrying of a domestic animal within the meaning of Agriculture and Markets Law § 121, and because the Pekinese was not a domestic animal as defined by Agriculture and Markets Law § 108(7), it fails to state a cause of action. However inartfully drafted the complaint makes reference to the overall attack which included the two children and was sufficient to place respondent on notice of the event at issue and the relief being sought. Had respondent objected to the technical defect before Village Court, the pleading could have been timely corrected (see, CPLR 405). The hearing focused on the entire attack and no substantial right of respondent was prejudiced. The pleading was liberally construed and the technical defect properly ignored (see, CPLR 3026). Both Village Court and County Court clearly found that the Rottweiler's attack was against the two boys and the Pekinese, a finding fully supported by the record. Giving due deference to Village Court, which viewed the witnesses firsthand (see, Colangione v. State of New York, 187 A.D.2d 844, 845, 589 N.Y.S.2d 948), we decline to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Patten v. City of Binghamton
...a human being or are repeat offenders. People v. Noga, 168 Misc.2d 131, 645 N.Y.S.2d 268 (2d Dep't 1996); People v. Horvath, 205 A.D.2d 927, 613 N.Y.S.2d 721 (3d Dep't 1994); Brooks v. Hemingway, 107 Misc.2d 190, 433 N.Y.S.2d 551 (Dist.Ct. Suffolk Cty 1980). There is no indication in the re......
-
Nardi v. Gonzalez
...(Agriculture and Markets Law § 121; 100 lb. Golden Labrador-Malamute [Jimbo ] attacks boy, confinement ordered); People v. Horvath, 205 A.D.2d 927, 613 N.Y.S.2d 721 (1994) (Agriculture and Markets Law § 121; Rottweiler chases two children and kills Pekinese, destruction ordered); Reda v. De......
-
People v. Shanks
...WL 4011659 [Mount Vernon City Ct. 2001];compare People v. Jornov, 65 A.D.3d at 364–366, 881 N.Y.S.2d 776;Matter of People v. Horvath, 205 A.D.2d 927, 928, 613 N.Y.S.2d 721 [1994] ). It appears that the premise for Town Court's finding that Ghost is a dangerous dog is that, although the smal......
- Adirondack Hydro Development Corp., Matter of