Court Opinion

ID: 6187476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-05 19:58:06.751385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:55:50.335557
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. Judgment, entered on or about November 10, 2015, affirmed, without costs. The trial court achieved “substantial justice” consistent with substantive law principles (CCA 1807; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898 [2000]) in resolving the liability aspect of this small claims action in plaintiff’s favor. The evidence permits a finding that, while plaintiff dog groomer may have assumed the risk of being bitten by a dog while performing her services, she did not assume the concealed or unreasonably increased risk (see Benitez v New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 NY2d 650, 658 [1989]) of defendant store owners’ negligent failure to screen for proper immunization paper work prior to offering plaintiff a dog for grooming, in violation of defendants’ express promise to plaintiff (see generally Roe v Keane Stud Farm, 261 AD2d 800 [1999]). After being bitten by a dog, plaintiff was properly awarded damages for the associated treatment of a documented infection caused by defendants’ own negligence in providing a dog to her that was not screened and did not receive proper immunizations, and for pain and suffering incurred because of the medical treatment. Schoenfeld, J.P., Ling-Cohan and González, JJ., concur.