The owner of a Brooklyn bodega where a cat attacked a customer cannot be held liable for damages because there is no proof the shopkeeper was aware of the animal's vicious tendencies, according to a Supreme Court judge.
August 13, 2014 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The owner of a Brooklyn bodega where an allegedly “ferocious feline” attacked a customer cannot be held liable for damages because there is no proof the shopkeeper was aware of the cat’s vicious tendencies, according to a Supreme Court judge.
Napolitano v. Alshaebi, 16549/12, underscores a controversial 188-year-old New York State policy that refuses to recognize common-law negligence as a viable cause of action in cases involving domestic animals.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.
Join General Counsel and Senior Legal Leaders at the Premier Forum Designed For and by General Counsel from Fortune 1000 Companies
This conference brings together the industry's most influential & knowledgeable real estate executives from the net lease sector.
Duane Morris LLP seeks a highly motivated junior associate to join its dynamic and growing Labor and Employment Class Action group in Chicag...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Tired of the stress of the big city? Are you looking to improve your quality of life? Then consider practicing law at the Jersey Shore. Pe...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
