RODRIGUES v. NORTE

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that they neither knew nor should have known that their dog had any propensity to bump into people ( see Cameron v Harari, 19 AD3d 631; Althoff v Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604; cf. Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zelman v Cosentino, 22 AD3d 486; Althoff v Lefebvre, supra).