You are here: / / Pit Bull Acted in Self-Defense and Should Not Have Been Deemed “Dangerous;” ”...

Pit Bull Acted in Self-Defense and Should Not Have Been Deemed “Dangerous;” ”Dangerous” Finding Can Not Be Based Solely On the Dog’s Breed

The Third Department determined that a pit bull had acted in self-defense when attacked by another dog which broke free of its leash and, on that basis, reversed the “dangerous dog” finding.  The Third Department noted that a “dangerous dog” finding should not be based solely on the breed of the dog:

The condemnation of an individual dog in the context of a dangerous dog proceeding solely by virtue of its breed is without any legal basis. We have  repeatedly  held  that  “‘there is no  persuasive  authority  for the proposition that a court should take judicial notice of the ferocity of any  particular type or breed  of domestic animal'” … .  Matter of People … v Shanks, 514029, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

DOG BITE

You might also like
LONG HAUL TRUCKERS NOT EMPLOYEES.
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PARENTS COULD NOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE DID NOT SUPPORT AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT UP TO THE PARTIES TO CRAFT A PARENTING-TIME SCHEDULE; A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IN A LINCOLN HEARING HAS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND MUST BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED AN INCONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS VISITATION/CONTACT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER LACKED STANDING TO CONTEST BAN ON FRACKING.
FAMILY COURT IMPROPERLY DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO STRUCTURE VISITATION.
AFTER TWO MENTIONS OF THE POSSIBLE NEED FOR AN ATTORNEY WHICH DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST, THE DEFENDANT STATED “THAT’S WHAT I WANT A LAWYER FOR,” HE WAS “SCARED TO TALK,” AND HE “COULD STILL COOPERATE LATER;” THOSE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE POLICE AS A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE TRACKED IN WATER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Second Summary Judgment Motion to Address Deficiencies in First Motion Should... Sexual Harassment Created Hostile Work Environment/Firing Was Impermissible...