In Erosa v. Mendoza, 186 Misc.2d 485 (App. Term, 1st Dep't 2000), the Appellate Term affirmed the refusal to grant summary judgment, finding that triable issues had been raised by "the claimed presence of a 'Beware of Dog' sign on the defendants' residential premises, the nature and severity of the facial wounds sustained by the [four-year-old] infant plaintiff as a result of the bites inflicted by defendants' dog, and the statements attributed to and admissions made by defendants concerning the dog's prior aggressive conduct. . . ." The concurring justice in Erosa, supra, found that summary judgment was inappropriate because of the defendants' failure "to explain what interaction was taking place between the plaintiff and the dog to explain why a dog would suddenly knock to the ground and viciously attack the plaintiff with multiple bites to the face after she had been in the house for a period of time."