Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Price v. Sarasene
Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 05908Docket: 531845
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 28, 2021; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In Price v. Sarasene, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Emily Sarasene, and dismissing the complaint filed by Richard Price and his spouse. The case arose from a dog bite incident in December 2016, where Price was bitten by a dog named Sampson while visiting the dog's owner, Lucas Gutchess. At the time, Sarasene, who was not the owner of Sampson, was holding the dog. The plaintiffs alleged strict liability, negligence, and loss of consortium against Sarasene. The court found that to establish strict liability, plaintiffs needed to demonstrate that Sarasene had prior knowledge of any vicious tendencies of Sampson. The court emphasized that a "vicious propensity" is defined as a tendency that poses a risk of harm, not necessarily aggressive behavior. The defendant successfully argued that she had no knowledge of any such tendencies before the incident. Evidence presented included deposition testimony from Price, who stated he did not consider Sampson a vicious dog, despite acknowledging prior altercations involving Sampson. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that Sarasene knew or should have known of any vicious propensities of Sampson, thereby affirming the dismissal of the complaint. Defendant provided an affidavit stating she had no prior knowledge of her dog, Sampson, exhibiting aggressive behavior, nor had she discussed any past altercations involving him with anyone. This fulfilled her prima facie burden, shifting the onus to plaintiffs to present a triable issue of fact, which they failed to do. Evidence showed Sampson often barked at passersby, deemed normal behavior for dogs and not indicative of a violent propensity known to the defendant. The fact that Sampson was restrained with a chain did not prove that the restraint was due to a concern for potential harm, as there was no evidence supporting this assertion. Furthermore, the nature of the attack was insufficient to demonstrate a propensity for violence, and the euthanization of Sampson, decided by his owners, did not affect the case's circumstances. Plaintiffs' claim that summary judgment was premature due to the lack of defendant's deposition was deemed speculative without evidence of prior incidents. Consequently, the order was affirmed with costs. Additional notes include that plaintiffs had initiated a separate action against other parties and that other related motions were not challenged on appeal.