court set forth a two-part test: “(1) the injury must have occurred in a common area under the control of the landlord; and (2) the landlord must have had actual or imputed knowledge of the particular dog’s vicious propensities.” Id. In the case sub judice, however, unlike in Linebaugh and Baker, the injury did not occur in the common area, but rather entirely within Morton’s apartment where Tevin was playing. Importantly, where injuries have resulted from a dog attack occurring on portions of the premises where the tenant, not the landlord, had exclusive control, several cases have indicated that a landlord may not be held liable. See, e.g., Goddard by Goddard v. Weaver, 558 N.E.2d 853, 854-55 (Ind.Ct.App.1990); Zwinge v. Love, 37 A.D.2d 874, 325 N.Y.S.2d 107, 109 (N.Y.App.Div.l971)(<HOLDING>); Denagy v. Doscher, 40 Misc.2d 643, 243
holding that motherowner of home in which attack occurred was not hable for attack by dog owned by sontenant where there was no evidence that she exercised dominion and control over the dog holding that a fiftynine minute detention to wait for a drug dog was reasonable where the officer requested the dog immediately after developing reasonable suspicion holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest holding district courts finding of consent was not clearly erroneous when the defendant consented after officers told him they could get a drug dog even though the defendant knew the dog would alert holding that a dog sniff search of a safe taken by a burglar from the defendants home was a search