DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in denying their motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie case establishing their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff, who sued on a theory of strict liability, established the existence of factual questions as to whether the defendants' dog had vicious propensities, and, if so, whether those propensities were known or should have been known to them (see, Moriano v. Schmidt, 133 A.D.2d 72 ; cf., Bohm v. Nystrum Constr., 208 A.D.2d 668 ; see generally,Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557 ; Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v. Ceppos, 46 N.Y.2d 223 ).
RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, LUCIANO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.