You are here: / / PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS PARTICIPATING IN A TRAINING SESSION WHEN HE WAS BITTEN BY A POLICE DOG; THE TRAINING WAS A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION; THEREFORE THE MUNICIPALITY MUST HAVE OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY TO BE LIABLE, NOT THE CASE HERE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the municipality (City of Middletown) did not owe a special duty to plaintiff police officer, who was bitten by a police dog during training: The dog handler, Officer McDonald (a City of Middletown police officer), and plaintiff were participants in training sessions conducted by the NYS Homeland Security and Emergency Services when the unleased dog bit plaintiff:

As part of the training, the police dogs were off-leash. The plaintiff, who was participating in a different training event in a different building, entered the building where the explosives detection training exercise was being held and was still in progress when he was bitten by Officer McDonald’s police dog.

When a negligence cause of action is asserted against a municipality, and the municipality was exercising a governmental function, a municipality may not be held liable unless it owed a special duty to the injured party … . Such a special duty can arise, as relevant here, where “the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not owe a special duty to the plaintiff. There was no evidence that Officer McDonald [the dog handler] took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to the plaintiff’s injuries … . The defendants established that Officer McDonald was an attendee at a training program conducted by the New York State Homeland Security and Emergency Services at a New York State facility, that he merely participated in the training exercise, and that he took direction from the NYPD canine instructor. Mahar v McDonald, 2025 NY Slip Op 00315, Second Dept 1-22-25

Practice Point: Here the police dog handler did not have control of the unleashed dog when it bit plaintiff. The dog and the handler were participating in an explosive-detection training session conducted by a third party. Because the dog handler had not taken control of a known and dangerous safety condition (the dog) at the time plaintiff was injured, the dog handler did not owe plaintiff a special duty, a prerequisite to municipal liability.

 

You might also like
LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT HAD BEEN SATISFIED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION, BROUGHT AFTER CONVICTION BY A JURY, WAS UNTIMELY AND NOT WARRANTED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIVE HOUSING COUNSELING AGENCIES LISTED IN THE RPAPL 1304 WERE DESIGNATED BY THE NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION.
LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MISTAKENLY ORDERED THE SALE OF MULTIPLE LOTS, WHICH WAS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A SINGLE BUILDING SPANNED THE THREE LOTS, THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY DEEMED THE PROPERTY TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AS A SINGLE LOT, COURT HAS THE POWER TO CORRECT A MISTAKE, SUA SPONTE, WHERE THERE IS NO PREJUDICE (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; FATHER ATTEMPTED TO ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT WAS LATE; FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BUT NONE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED; AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT ABANDON THE CHILD (SECOND 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

PLAINTIFF WAS CROUCHING DOWN MARKING THE FLOOR WITH DUCT TAPE WHEN A LADDER... RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES,...