Wendy Schwartz Obtains Summary Judgment For Defendants In Dog Bite Case In Richmond County

At the time of the incident, the infant plaintiff and her mother were visiting a home owned by our clients who resided out of state. It was alleged the dog was owned by tenants of the property and that the dog bit the infant plaintiff causing substantial facial injuries. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the tenants. Our motion for summary judgement focused on our clients’ lack of knowledge that a dog was being harbored on the premises and that they neither knew nor should have known of any alleged vicious propensities. Deposition testimony was elicited by both plaintiffs and our clients that our clients were never made aware of the presence of a dog on their property. No prior incidents involving the dog were known and no prior complaints were received. As our clients testified at their depositions with the assistance of an interpreter, Wendy Schwartz elicited testimony from them clarifying their position in order to ensure that we were able to satisfy their burden of proof on the motion without the need for an affidavit.

The court adopted our arguments that in order to recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenants’ dog, plaintiffs had to demonstrate that (1) the landlord had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises, (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog. It was undisputed that our clients, as landlords, did not own the subject dog. It was also undisputed that plaintiffs and defendant landlords never communicated and neither side was aware of the presence of the other. After clearly demonstrating that both the dog’s presence at the premises as well as any prior alleged behavioral issues with the dog were unknown to our clients, the Court held plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The complaint against our clients was dismissed with prejudice.