NOREIKA v. CASCIOLA

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.