| Wright v Fiore |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07531 [77 AD3d 821] |
| October 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Helen Wright, Appellant, v Jacqueline Fiore, Respondent,et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Thomas K. Moore, White Plains, N.Y. (Neil B. Dinces of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by herbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), datedMarch 18, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Jacqueline Fiore whichwas for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
" ' [W]hen harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner's liability is determined solelyby application of the rule articulated in Collier [v Zambito (1 NY3d 444[2009])]'—i.e., the rule of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whoseowner knows or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities" (Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d546, 550 [2009] [citation omitted], quoting Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006]; see Bernstein v Penny Whistle Toys,Inc., 10 NY3d 787 [2008]; Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d at 446-447). Here,through submission of the parties' deposition testimony, the defendant Jacqueline Fioreestablished, prima facie, that her dog never exhibited any vicious propensities (see Bard vJahnke, 6 NY3d at 597; Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d at 446-447; Dykeman v Heht, 52 AD3d 767,769 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Collier vZambito, 1 NY3d at 447; Levine vKadison, 70 AD3d 651 [2010]).
Moreover, the plaintiff cannot recover in common-law negligence (see Petrone v Fernandez, 12 NY3d546 [2009]; Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d at 599; Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d at446-447; Feit v Wehrli, 67 AD3d729 [2009]; Frank v Eaton, 54AD3d 805 [2008]). Accordingly, Fiore's alleged violation of the local leash law is "irrelevantbecause such a violation is only some evidence of negligence, and negligence is no longer a basisfor imposing liability" after Collier and Bard (Alia v Fiorina, 39 AD3d 1068,1069 [2007]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Fiore's motion which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her. Rivera, J.P.,Skelos, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.