Landlord Had No Notice of Dog's Vicious Tendencies

April 30, 2003

LVT Number: 16510

Tenant sued landlord for negligence after she was bitten by a dog owned by another tenant. The other tenant also was a part-time employee of landlord. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial, claiming it wasn't responsible. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Landlord didn't know that the other tenant kept a dog in violation of her lease. Also, landlord had no notice of the dog's vicious tendencies. The fact that the other tenant was landlord's employee didn't make landlord responsible either.

Tenant sued landlord for negligence after she was bitten by a dog owned by another tenant. The other tenant also was a part-time employee of landlord. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial, claiming it wasn't responsible. The court ruled for landlord. Tenant appealed and lost. Landlord didn't know that the other tenant kept a dog in violation of her lease. Also, landlord had no notice of the dog's vicious tendencies. The fact that the other tenant was landlord's employee didn't make landlord responsible either. The other tenant didn't keep the dog for any purpose related to landlord's business.

Smith v. NYCHA: NYLJ, 4/21/03, p. 28, col. 5 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; Altman, JP, Smith, McGinity, Crane, JJ)

Topics

More like this