EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DOG BITE; PLAINTIFF HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE VICIOUS PROPENSITIES PRIOR TO THE BITE. The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant animal shelter could not be held liable for a dog bite, even if the shelter breached its duty to inform plaintiff, who adopted the dog, of the dog’s vicious propensities. The plaintiff observed the dog’s vicious propensities after bringing the dog home. Therefore, the animal shelter’s breach was not the proximate cause of the bite: “Here, even if the defendant breached its duty to disclose the dog’s vicious propensities known to it, or ‘ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care’ at the time of the plaintiff’s adoption ... , by failing to in- form the plaintiff that the dog had previously bitten someone in the face, any such breach was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The dog’s displays of aggressive behavior during the three and a half months the plaintiff owned it, and the fact that it last bit the plaintiff on July 13, 2012, gave the plaintiff suf cient knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities before she was bitten again on September 3, 2012 ...”. Tighe v. North Shore Animal League Am., 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05807, 2nd Dept 8-17-16 "Robin, this is why we stick with the cats."