Page 31 - WCBA Appellate Practice Committee CLE May 2024-Handout

the FOIL request. Moreover, no evidence was submitted regarding the costs of fulfilling the petitioner’s
request and, if necessary, whether the petitioner would be willing to bear those costs. Accordingly, this
Court found that questions of fact existed and needed to be resolved, including whether some of the
requested records could be located, identified, and produced through the use of electronic word search
mechanisms or, potentially, an outside professional service. This Court also rejected the respondents’
argument that the Village satisfied its obligations under FOIL by maintaining a public website which
contained much of the information sought by the petitioner. This Court pointed to a 2008 amendment
to FOIL which added a provision requiring an agency to provide records on the medium requested by
the individual submitting the FOIL request. FOIL also requires an agency to provide copies or
reproductions of records when requested. Directing a member of the public to a website, as the
respondents did here, when a request was made for the reproduction of records in a certain format,
failed to satisfy the statutory requirements. Regulations expressly provide that when an agency
maintains requested records on the internet, a response shall inform the requester that the records are
accessible via the internet and in printed form either on paper or other information storage medium.
Thus, the Supreme Court should not have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Cantore v Costantine, 221 AD3d 56 [November 15, 2023] [Justice Genovesi opinion; Justices Duffy,
Brathwaite Nelson, and Taylor concur]
HOLDING: In an action by the plaintiff against the defendant owners of a restaurant to recover damages
for personal injuries the plaintiff alleged were sustained when a dog at the restaurant bit the plaintiff’s
infant, this Court reversed an order of the Supreme Court which denied the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them as there was no evidence
that they knew of any vicious propensities of the dog. In doing so, this Court determined that the Court
of Appeal’s holding in Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541) did not extend to business
owners who have no special expertise with or professional knowledge about dogs and, under the
circumstances of this case, had no knowledge of any vicious propensities of the dog at issue.

FACTS: The plaintiff’s infant was bitten by a dog at a restaurant owned by the defendants. The dog was
owned by other restaurant patrons. The plaintiff, as the mother and natural guardian of the infant
alleged that the defendant restaurant owners, with knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities, allowed
the dog to wander about the premises. The restaurant defendants moved for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against them on the ground that they were
entitled to judgment as a matter of law as they had no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities, their
“dog friendly” restaurant required dogs to be leashed, and the dog was leashed at the time of the
incident. Although the restaurant owners acknowledged, citing Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC, (35
NY3d 541) that a plaintiff may commence a negligence action against a non dog-owning defendant in
certain circumstances, a restaurant owner cannot be held liable for a dog bite without knowledge of the
dog’s vicious propensities. The restaurant owners averred that they had no specialized knowledge of
dog behavior and that the bite was unforeseeable. In support of their motion, the restaurant owners
submitted a photograph of a sign displayed in the restaurant which provides: “We are a pet friendly
establishment as long as your pet is friendly, on a leash, and quiet. Do not let your pet take away from
other patrons’ dining experience.” In opposition, the plaintiff argued that, pursuant to Hewitt, a
standard negligence analysis applies and not an analysis based on knowledge of vicious propensities.

28