Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc.

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 10 N.Y.3d 787, 886 N.E.2d 154, 856 N.Y.S.2d 532

Decision Date: 3/18/2008

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Bernstein v. Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 787, 886 N.E.2d 154, 856 N.Y.S.2d 532 (2008)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2008

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 9% most-cited · cited by 31 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.21

N.Y. Sup. Ct.3

NY3

N.Y.2

2d Cir.1

S.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2025Flanders v. Goodfellow NY
2023Waters v. United States S.D.N.Y.
2022T.B. v. Town of Hempstead Animal Shelter and Town of Hempstead 2d Cir.
2020Marsha Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic NY
2018Hewitt v. Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC N.Y. App. Div.
2018Easley v. Animal Med. Ctr. N.Y. App. Div.
2018Brinkman v. Marshall Field VI N.Y. App. Div.
2015Hargro v. Ross N.Y. App. Div.
2015Bitonti v. McGeever N.Y. Sup. Ct.
2014Cappellino v. Lake Huntington Summer Community Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct.

Cites 2 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Danielle Bernstein, an Infant, by Her Father and Natural Guardian, Roger Bernstein, et al., Appellants, v Penny Whistle Toys, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Rappaport, Glass, Greene & Levine, LLP, New York City (James L. Forde of counsel), for appellants.
Carol R. Finocchio, New York City, Lisa M. Comeau, and Law Offices of John P. Humphreys, for respondents.
Hawkins, Feretic, Daly & Maroney, New York City (Brian J. Daly of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

majority Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

We held in Collier v Zambito (1 NY3d 444, 447 [2004]) that a plaintiff bitten by a dog could not recover because he was unable to show that the dog’s owner knew or should have known of the dog’s “vicious propensities.” In Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006]), we held that “when harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule articulated in Collier.”

Since there is no evidence in this case that the dog’s owner had any knowledge of its vicious propensities, the Appellate Division was correct in affirming the dismissal of the complaint against defendants. Plaintiffs claims against third-party defendant were also properly dismissed, because there is no evidence that third-party defendant was negligent.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.