DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's propensities ( see Lugo v. Angle of Green, 268 A.D.2d 567; Bohm v. Nystrum Constr., 208 A.D.2d 668, 668-669). The defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853; Sers v. Manasia, 280 A.D.2d 539, 540). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the dog had vicious propensities or whether the defendants knew of such propensities ( see Collier v. Zambito, N.Y.3d, N.Y. Slip Op 00960 [Feb. 17, 2004]; Fontanas v. Wilson, 300 A.D.2d 808, 809; Luts v. Weeks, 268 A.D.2d 568; Lugo v. Angle of Green, supra).
Moreover, with respect to the portion of the plaintiff's complaint sounding in common-law negligence, the defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants were negligent in failing to prevent a reasonably foreseeable injury ( see Ballard v. Campbell, 304 A.D.2d 780; Luts v. Weeks, supra; Althoff v. Lefebvre, 240 A.D.2d 604).
FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.