Shuffian v. Garfola
| Decision Date | 14 December 1959 |
| Citation | 9 A.D.2d 910,195 N.Y.S.2d 45 |
| Parties | Abraham SHUFFIAN, Respondent, v. Ralph GARFOLA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Galli, Terhune, Gibbons & Mulvehill, New York City, for appellant, Patrick E. Gibbons, New York City, of counsel.
Bogart & Lonergan, New York City, for spondent, Jos. M. Lonergan, New York City, of counsel.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, BELDOCK, UGHETTA and HALLINAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal, by permission of this court, from an order of the Appellate Term which affirmed a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered after trial before an Official Referee awarding respondent damages for personal injuries. The notice of appeal states that appeal is also taken from a judgment of affirmance entered in the office of the clerk of the City Court.
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Respondent while working on his employer's premises suffered an unprovoked attack and was bitten by a police dog owned and harbored by appellant, the owner of the adjoining premises. Appellant kept the animal on his premises as a watchdog for the protection of his property. The dog escaped from appellant's yard through a gate left open by appellant, and entered the yard in which respondent was working, where the attack occurred. The fact that the animal was kept for protection and as a watchdog, and the manner in which it was customarily restrained were sufficient, under the circumstances disclosed, to charge appellant with knowledge of its propensity to bite. Brice v. Bauer, 108 N.Y. 428, 432, 15 N.E. 695, 697; Kessler v. Katz, 212 App.Div. 838, 207 N.Y.S. 680. When used with reference to the liability of one who harbors a domestic animal of vicious propensities, the words 'vicious propensities' include a propensity to do any act that might endanger the persons or property of others in a given situation (Dickson v. McCoy, 39 N.Y. 400, 403).
Appeal from judgment dismissed, without costs.
No appeal lies to this court from such judgment. Cf. Civil Practice Act, § 623; New York City Court Act, § 61; Geyer v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 274 App.Div. 937, 84 N.Y.S.2d 920; Weisbrot v. Select Operating Corp., 4 A.D.2d 699, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1004.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strunk v. Zoltanski
...Misc.2d 842, 175 N.Y.S.2d 188, affd. 8 A.D.2d 986, 191 N.Y.S.2d 146; Lagoda v. Dorr, 28 A.D.2d 208, 284 N.Y.S.2d 130; Shuffian v. Garfola, 9 A.D.2d 910, 195 N.Y.S.2d 45; Kessler v. Katz, 212 App.Div. 838, 207 N.Y.S. 680), from the fact that the dog was a German Shepherd, a breed said to hav......
-
Machacado v. City of New York
...vicious propensities which go to establish liability include a propensity to do Any act which might endanger another (Shuffian v. Garfola, 9 A.D.2d 910, 195 N.Y.S.2d 45) and it has been held that these propensities may include jumping on people (Shain v. Crausman, 3 N.Y.2d 764, 163 N.Y.S.2d......
-
Warwick v. Mulvey
...questions. See Norman v. Norman, 103 Ga.App. 626, 120 S.E.2d 42; Tucker v. Sclafani & Sons, Sup., 200 N.Y.S.2d 778; Shuffian v. Garfola, 9 A.D.2d 910, 195 N.Y.S.2d 45. Before passing this subject defendant's brief contains some contention that in view of her evidence that Frosty was friendl......
-
Carter v. Metro North Associates
...v. Charles Heinsohn, 91 A.D.2d 1029, 1030, 458 N.Y.S.2d 619, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 741, 463 N.Y.S.2d 441, 450 N.E.2d 247; Shuffian v. Garfola, 9 A.D.2d 910, 195 N.Y.S.2d 45). Whether the animal that caused the plaintiff's injuries had vicious propensities is a question for the jury (Rider v. Whit......