ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> New York Blogs -> New York Civil Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

New York

: New York Civil Law

Landlord Possibly Liable for Tenant's Dog Who Bit Plaintiff's Child Off the Landlord's Property

By Matthew Lerner

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Appellate Division, Third Department in Champ-Doran v. Lewis recently held that an issue of fact existed regarding the defendant landlord's liability for injuries the plaintiff's child sustained.  The plaintiff's child was attacked by one of two dogs owned by the defendant's tenants on the plaintiff's front own front porch.  The plaintiff stated in his bill of particulars that the defendant landlord was aware of the vicious propensities of his tenant's dogs; he also alleged that the defendant tenant had actual and constructive notice that the fence surrounding the landlord's property was "broken and otherwise defective."

 Supreme Court denied the defendant landlord's summary judgment motion.  The defendant landlord argued that he was not liable because the incident did not occur on his property.

The Third Department agreed with Supreme Court, noting that the defendant had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities and had an adequate opportunity to control the premises and confine the dogs.  The defendant admitted at his deposition that soon after he rented the property to the tenant he became aware of the dogs and received a complaint from a neighbor about barking.  He also admitted that he knew of prior occasions where the dogs escaped the property and told the tenant that the dogs had to go.  Affidavits from neighbors demonstrated that they complained to the defendant about the dogs and their vicious propensities.

The Court recognized that generally a landlord does not owe a duty of care to persons injured from a tenant's dog where the injury occurs off the landlord's property.  The Court concluded, however, that liability can nevertheless be imposed where it is established that the defendant knew of the dog's presence on the premises and its vicious propensities, and the defendant had control of the premises or otherwise had the ability to remove or confine the dog.

Full post as published by New York Civil Law on January 24, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0174 secs (new cache)