You are here: / / EVEN IF ANIMAL SHELTER FAILED TO INFORM PLAINTIFF OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS...

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:

“For [two hundred] years … , the law of this state has been that the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal’s vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … . “If such animal be delivered [by the owner] to another, he [or she] must inform such person of the animal’s vicious characteristics, so far as known, or ascertainable by the exercise of reasonable care. If such information be given, or the person to whom the animal is delivered knows, or before injury ascertains, the vicious character of the animal, the owner is not liable” … . The rationale for such rule is self-evident—informing a person who takes possession of an animal about the animal’s vicious propensities allows that person to take precautionary measures to protect himself or herself and others from harm caused by that animal’s vicious propensities.

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 inform 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 first bit the plaintiff on July 13, 2012, gave the plaintiff sufficient knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities before she was bitten again on September 3, 2012 … . Tighe v North Shore Animal League Am., 2016 NY Slip Op 05807, 2nd Dept 8-17-16

 

ANIMAL LAW (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)/DOG BITE (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)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE REAR DRIVER IN A REAR-END COLLISION IS NOT ALWAYS NEGLIGENT, THE ALLEGATION THE FRONT DRIVER SUDDENLY STOPPED FOR A YELLOW LIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FRONT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).
DISCOVERY OF PRIOR ASSAULTS IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PRIOR ASSAULTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENTS, ASSAULTS OF ANY KIND MAY HAVE PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER OR THAT PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY ASPECT OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Attempted Murder and Attempted Robbery Convictions, Under the Facts, Required Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences—Applicable Law Described in Some Depth
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT PLAINTIFF MUST ARBITRATE HIS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS; AFTER THE UNION REFUSED TO ARBITRATE THE CLAIMS PLAINTIFF BROUGHT THE INSTANT HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; THE COMPLAINT WAS STAYED PENDING ARBITRATION (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
Criteria for Administrative Expungement of a Report of Child Abuse or Maltreatment Explained
Ambiguity in Separation Agreement Construed Against Drafter

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

FRAUD ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO SALE OF DEFECTIVE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES... PREJUDGMENT INTEREST NEED NOT BE PAID INTO THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 2601 WHEN...