Legal Opinion · Dissent

Collier v. Zambito

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 17, 2004Published

POINTS OF COUNSEL

1DissentG.B. Smith, J.

Because a question of fact exists as to whether defendants knew or should have known of the potential of the dog to harm others, I dissent.

Plaintiff Andrea Collier commenced this action against defendants Charles Zambito and Mary Zambito seeking damages for injuries sustained by her 12-year-old son, Matthew, when defendants’ dog, a mixed beagle/collie/rottweiler, bit him in the face while he was a guest at their home.

At the examination before trial, Matthew testified that he had visited defendants’ home on five or six prior occasions as he was a friend of defendants’ son. During those visits…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Strunk v. ZoltanskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Dickson v. . McCoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
  3. Rider v. . WhiteNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  4. Perrotta v. PiccianoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
  5. Wilson v. LivingstonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API