Chang Ying-Xu v Keita

Annotate this Case
[*1] Chang Ying-Xu v Keita 2014 NY Slip Op 50640(U) Decided on April 7, 2014 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 7, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : WESTON, J.P., PESCE and ALIOTTA, JJ
2013-200 RI C.

Susana Chang Ying-Xu, Appellant,

against

Mohammed Keita, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Philip S. Straniere, J.), entered November 2, 2012. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries sustained when she was attacked, while on her own property at 754 Seaview Avenue in Staten Island, by a dog allegedly owned by a tenant living on defendant's property at 738 Seaview Avenue. By order entered November 2, 2012, the Civil Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Under the circumstances presented, we find that defendant owed no duty of care to plaintiff (see Walker v Gold, 70 AD3d 1349 [2010]; Seiger v Dercole, 50 AD3d 1524 [2010]; Ruffin v Dykes, 37 AD3d 1191 [2007]; Gomez v Delacruz, 27 AD3d 219 [2006]; Braithwaite v Presidential Property Servs. Inc., 24 AD3d 487 [2005]; Weipert v Oldfield, 298 AD2d 974 [2002]; Philips v Coffee To Go, 269 AD2d 123 [2000]). Plaintiff failed to establish that defendant knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities, and that defendant had sufficient "control of the premises or otherwise had the ability to remove or confine the dog" (Phillips v Coffee To Go, 269 AD2d at 124). Consequently, the court properly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 07, 2014

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.