Zwinge v. Love
Citation | 37 A.D.2d 874,325 N.Y.S.2d 107 |
Parties | Peter ZWINGE, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Tammy Zwinge, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. Marcella LOVE, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 21 October 1971 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Murray & Jubic, Troy (William R. Murray, Troy, of counsel), for respondents.
Martin, Noonan, Hislop & Troue, Troy (William E. Noonan, Troy, of counsel), for appellant.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and AULISI, STALEY, COOKE and SWEENEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 14, 1970 in Rensselaer County, which denied a motion by defendant for summary judgment.
Although the owner of a dog, which he knows or has reason to know has a vicious propensity, is liable for injuries caused by it (Lagoda v. Dorr, 28 A.D.2d 208, 284 N.Y.S.2d 130), as well as the harborer or keeper of such an animal (Quilty v. Battie, 135 N.Y. 201, 204, 32 N.E. 47), such a rule of liability has not been extended to a landlord who merely leases the realty to the owner of the dog (Denagy v. Doscher, 40 Misc.2d 643, 243 N.Y.S. 575; cf. Laguttuta v. Chisolm, 65 App.Div. 326, 330, 72 N.Y.S. 905, 907; 1 New York Law of Landlord and Tenant, § 184).
The complaint alleges that on or about May 21, 1968 the infant plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a dog while in the home of defendant in the Town of Stephentown, Rensselaer County, and that on said date defendant wrongfully kept and harbored a dog 'owned by the defendant's son and daughter-in-law'. Besides this admission of ownership of the dog in persons other than defendant (Kraus v Birnbaum, 200 N.Y. 130, 137, 93 N.E. 474, 476), defendant's affidavit and that of James Hoffman, her son, recite, without factual dispute, that the latter was the owner of the dog in question, it having been purchased by him during the summer of 1967. It is also undisputed that defendant did not live at the premises where the injury occurred, that she resided at an address in Massachusetts for about two years prior to the incident and that during said period the Stephentown premises were exclusively occupied by the son. Affidavits submitted by defendant allege that the dog was under the son's exclusive dominion and control, without any exercise by defendant, and there is no evidentiary showing indicating that defendant harbored or kept it. The fact that defendant, while visiting her son, may have called the dog, given it commands or let it in and out of the premises...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matthews v. AMBERWOOD ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
...may not be held liable. See, e.g., Goddard by Goddard v. Weaver, 558 N.E.2d 853, 854-55 (Ind.Ct.App.1990); Zwinge v. Love, 37 A.D.2d 874, 325 N.Y.S.2d 107, 109 (N.Y.App.Div.1971)(holding that mother/owner of home in which attack occurred was not liable for attack by dog owned by son/tenant ......
-
Latz v. Parr
...the owner of the premises, was not an out of possession landlord or mere visitor to the dog owner's home (cf. Zwinge v. Love , 37 A.D.2d 874, 325 N.Y.S.2d 107 [(1971)]). As there is no dispute that, at the time of the attacks, the dog lived with Cleveland, with her permission in the home th......
- Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams
-
Steinberg By and Through Martinez v. Petta
...dog. (Gilbert v. Christiansen (Minn.1977), 259 N.W.2d 896; Hagenau v. Millard (1923), 182 Wis. 544, 195 N.W. 718; Zwinge v. Love (Sup.Ct.1971), 37 A.D.2d 874, 325 N.Y.S.2d 107.) While these decisions are not binding upon this Court (Galinski v. Kessler (1985), 134 Ill.App.3d 602, 605, 89 Il......