CLARK-HUBER v. LEO

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff was bitten by a dog on premises owned by the defendant and the defendant's in-laws. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages under a theory of strict liability. The record is devoid of evidence that the defendant was aware that the dog had vicious propensities or that the dog had displayed such propensities in the past (see, Strunk v. Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572, 575 ; see also, Nicols v. Cardone, 257 A.D.2d 612 ; Arcara v. Whytas, 219 A.D.2d 871 ; Althoff v. Lefebvre, 240 A.D.2d 604 ). Under the circumstances, summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted.

O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.