In Schwartz v. Erpf Estate (255 AD2d 35, 37, appeal dismissed 94 NY2d 796 [1999]) the Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment under common-law principles of negligence where a four-year-old boy sustained severe brain damage from being kicked in the head by a horse. The Court held: "New York has repeatedly rejected application of a negligence standard when injury was caused by domestic animals; rather, in such cases discussion generally begins and ends with consideration of whether the animal in question was known to have vicious propensities "Nevertheless, we conclude that in certain limited circumstances, claims of injury caused by animals may be based upon a theory of negligence rather than upon the strict liability resulting from the vicious propensity rule. Of course, in view of this State's broad use of the vicious propensity rule to the exclusion of ordinary negligence claims, a cause of action grounded in negligence may not be based merely upon the failure to prevent the complained-of misbehavior by the animal. The owner of a domestic animal, absent prior indications of a problem, has no particular duty with respect to that animal's behavior toward visitors in the home. Before our courts may consider a negligence claim concerning the behavior of an animal, there must be some other distinct act that the defendant should have done or refrained from doing under the particular circumstances, or some distinct, enhanced duty." (Schwartz, 255 AD2d at 38 .) In Schwartz, the Court held that a landowner owes an enhanced duty of care when small children are living on the premises with a known dangerous condition, such as the presence of a horse.