Legal Opinion · Dissent

Doerr v. Goldsmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 3, 2013Published

1Dissent

Andrias and DeGrasse, JJ.,

dissent in a memorandum by Andrias, J., as follows: We reversed the order denying defendant Smith’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal (see Doerr v Goldsmith, 105 AD3d 534 [1st Dept 2013]). Rather, the sole viable claim is for strict liability, and here there is no evidence that defendant had knowledge that her dog had a propensity to interfere with traffic (see Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d 546, 550…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bard v. JahnkeNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. Petrone v. FernandezNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. Hastings v. SauveNew York Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Doerr v. GoldsmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API