Smith v. Reilly
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart (N.Y. 2015)
- ANTINORE, WAYNE v. IVISON, JOHN (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Antinore v. Ivison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Antinore v. Ivison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Buicko v. Neto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Buicko v. Neto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Flanders v. Goodfellow (N.Y. 2025)
- DeCollibus v. Schimmel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- DeCollibus v. Schimmel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- ClarkvHeaps (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- DOBINSKI, CHERYL v. LOCKHART, GEORGE O. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Clark v. Heaps (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Clark v. Heaps (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Doerr v. Goldsmith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Doerr v. Goldsmith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- UVANNI, MARY E. v. CRUMB, RICK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Hamlin v. Sullivan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Bloomer v. Shauger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the *896 complaint granted and the certified question answered in the negative.
Defendant’s submissions establish that she had no knowledge of her dog’s alleged propensity to interfere with traffic. Defendant testified that the dog had never before chased cars, bicycles or pedestrians or otherwise interfered with traffic. Testimony that the dog, on three to five occasions, escaped defendant’s control, barked, and ran towards the road is insufficient to establish a triable issue of material fact (see Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 446 [2004]).
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.