Case ID: ny3d_10/html/0787-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Memorandum.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[ 886 NE2d 154, 856 NYS2d 532]
    Danielle Bernstein, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Roger Bernstein, et al., Appellants, v Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. (And a Third-Party Action.)
    Argued February 14, 2008;
    decided March 18, 2008
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Rappaport, Glass, Greene & Levine, LLP, New York City (James L. Forde of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Carol R. Finocchio, New York City, Lisa M. Comeau, and Law Offices of John P. Humphreys, for respondents.
    
      Hawkins, Feretic, Daly & Maroney, New York City (Brian J. Daly of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

We held in Collier v Zambito (1 NY3d 444, 447 [2004]) that a plaintiff bitten by a dog could not recover because he was unable to show that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s “vicious propensities.” In Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006]), we held that “when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule articulated in Collier.”

Since there is no evidence in this case that the dog’s owner had any knowledge of its vicious propensities, the Appellate Division was correct in affirming the dismissal of the complaint against defendants. Plaintiffs claims against third-party defendant were also properly dismissed, because there is no evidence that third-party defendant was negligent.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.