People v Williams

Annotate this Case

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree assault, a violent felony offense. At issue was whether "a determinate sentence of imprisonment actually imposed" included the mandatory period of postrelease supervision (PRS) for purposes of calculating the duration of an order of protection issued at sentencing. After reviewing revisions of the Penal Law, the court held that it did and affirmed the order of the Appellate Division.

Bloomer v Shauger 2013 NY Slip Op 03121 Decided on May 2, 2013 Court of Appeals Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 2, 2013
No. 79

[*1]Robert Bloomer, Appellant,

v

Christine M. Shauger, Respondent.

John G. Rusk, for appellant.
P. David Twichell, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

Plaintiff's hand was injured because, while plaintiff was holding the halter of defendant's horse, the horse jerked her head back. According to plaintiff, the horse was reacting [*2]to an attempt by defendant to put a lead line on the horse.

Under the rule of Bard v Jahnke, (6 NY3d 592, 596-597 [2006]), plaintiff cannot recover in the absence of a showing that defendant had knowledge of the animal's "vicious propensity" or "propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others" (Bard, 6 NY3d at 596-597, quoting Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 446 [2004]). No such showing was made here. A tendency to shy away when a person reaches for a horse's throat or face is, as the record shows, a trait typical of horses. The Appellate Division correctly held that a vicious propensity cannot consist of "behavior that is normal or typical for the particular type of animal in question" (Bloomer v Shauger, 94 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2012]).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur.
Decided May 2, 2013

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.