Shaw v. Burgess

While I concur in the majority’s position that plaintiff failed to demonstrate both that the animals had vicious propensities and that “the owner knew of such propensities ‘or that they existed for such a period of time that a reasonably prudent person would have discovered them’ ” (Tessiero v Conrad, 186 AD2d 330, 330 [1992], quoting Appel v Charles Heinsohn, Inc., 91 AD2d 1029, 1030 [1983], affd 59 NY2d 741 [1983]), I believe that, under the particular fact pattern here presented, the negligence cause of action must be reinstated* (see Marcial v Maldonado, 288 AD2d 357, 358 [2001]; Goldberg…