Legal Opinion
Thurber v. Apmann
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 26, 2012PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMalone Jr., J.
An “ ‘owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held [strictly] liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities’ ” (Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 596 [2006], quoting Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 446 [2004]; accord Gannon v Conti, 86 AD3d 704, 705 [2011]). Here, as the proponent of summary judgment, defendant bore the initial burden of establishing that, prior to the instant incident, she did not know or have reason to know that her dogs possessed any vicious or dangerous propensities (see Gannon v…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Collier v. ZambitoNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Bard v. JahnkeNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Roupp v. ConradAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Rose v. HeatonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Malpezzi v. RyanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bloom v. Van LentenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Price v. SaraseneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Bloom v. Van LentenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Gonzalez v. RochesterDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2020