Strunk v. Zoltanski
New York Court of Appeals
POINTS OF COUNSEL Defendant-appellant, absentee landlord, should not be held liable to plaintiff, who was a guest of a tenant in exclusive possession and control of the demised premises, for injuries sustained by plaintiff guest when he was bitten by the tenant’s dog.
Read the full summary
POINTS OF COUNSEL Defendant-appellant, absentee landlord, should not be held liable to plaintiff, who was a guest of a tenant in exclusive possession and control of the demised premises, for injuries sustained by plaintiff guest when he was bitten by the tenant’s dog. (Carlisle v Cassasa, 234 App Div 112; Ford v Steindon, 35 Mise 2d 339; Kelley v Hitzig, 71 Mise 2d 329, 86 Mise 2d 42; Shuffian v Garfola, 9 AD2d 910; Brice v Bauer, 108 NY 428; Muller v McKesson, 73 NY 195; Quilty v Battle, 135 NY 201; Zwinge v Love, 37 AD2d 874; Denagy v Doscher, 40 Mise 2d 643; Laguttuta v Chisolm, 65 App Div…
1DissentKaye, J.
The new duty recognized by the majority effectively subjects a landlord to absolute liability for damage caused by a tenant’s dog or other animal with “vicious propensities” of which the landlord is aware at the start of a tenancy.1 Because such an expansion deviates from established principles of law in this State, and because no sound reason is advanced to depart from these principles, I respectfully dissent.
While the majority states that it does not intend to subject landlords to the same strict liability as owners of animals, it is impossible to reconcile that statement with the result…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pulka v. EdelmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Muller v. . McKessonNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Campbell v. Elsie S. Holding Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Siegel v. 1536-46 St. John's Place Corp.City of New York Municipal Court · 1945
- Zwinge v. LoveAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.