It's hard to believe that 2017 is almost half over!  As you break out the patio furniture, find your golf clubs in the basement and light your grills for summer cookouts, please enjoy the June 2017 Nash Connors, P.C. newsletter.  As always, you'll find some news from the firm and a great recap of recent appellate case decisions from New York.  Please enjoy!

DOG BITE:  Plaintiff successfully raised a question of fact in opposition to a summary judgment motion involving a dog bite when the evidence showed that defendant's dog "snapped at" and "growled at" other dogs at a dog daycare facility.  In addition, the daycare records stated that the dog was "unpredictable" and was not invited to remain at the facility following a three-day trial period.  The Appellate Division said these facts were relevant to whether the dog owner knew about the dog's vicious propensities ( Arrington v Cohen). 


HERE'S ANOTHER DOG BITE CASE:  Defendant dog owner moved for summary judgment on the basis that he did not have knowledge of any vicious propensities of the dog, and the trial court granted the motion in large part because the dog had never bit anyone prior to the accident. The Appellate Division reversed, noting that an actual prior bite is not required to show prior vicious propensities. The record showed that the dog had been known to bark at people when they entered the property, run at people when it was chained on the property, and had broken his chain so that he could run at and circle people ( Olson v Campbell).


SWIMMING POOL ACCIDENT:  Plaintiff nearly drowned in defendant-hotel's swimming pool.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant knew of a dangerous condition-- namely, a group of children running and jumping in the swimming pool area -- and that defendant had the duty to control such conduct.  In response, the hotel showed that it was not aware of the need to exercise control over the children and, moreover, that it did not have the opportunity to do so ( Wallace v M&C Hotel Interests, Inc., et al.).


LABOR LAW:  A plaintiff was injured while climbing out of an unraised aerial bucket when his foot got caught on part of the bucket usually covered by a "dielectric liner" and he fell 12 to 15 feet. The Second Department noted that the dielectric liner protects workers from electric shocks, not from falls from heights. The court found that there was nothing defective or inadequate about the bucket relating to fall protection. Dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law 240 claim was affirmed ( Robinson v Nat'l Grid Energy Mgmt, LLC).


LABOR LAW, PT II:  A homeowner did not get the benefit of homeowner exemption of the Labor Law in a Second Department recent case. Plaintiff testified that defendant homeowner directed him to throw debris from a balcony with no railing, where he was ultimately injured, rather than out of a window. In light of plaintiff's testimony of specific direction from the homeowner, defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that he did not direct or control the injury-producing work, and denial of summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims was affirmed (Wadlowski v Cohen).