You are here: / Animal Law
, ,

THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff slipped and fell because of the condition of the floor, and not because of the actions of an animal, a cow which plaintiff was walking back to her stall when both he and the cow fell:

The plaintiff, who was working as a farrier, went to the defendant Bobby Wickham’s farm to service his cows. The cement area that the plaintiff had to traverse to transport each cow to and from her stall allegedly was covered with feces and urine. When the plaintiff complained to Wickham that the floor was very slippery, Wickham allegedly stated that he did not have sand to put down on the ground. The plaintiff serviced six or seven cows without incident. While he was working, the plaintiff saw cows slip on the floor. After servicing the cow at issue, the plaintiff was walking the cow back to her stall when he slipped and fell on the floor. The cow then fell on top of the plaintiff’s right foot.

… Wickham moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, contending that the sole means of recovery of damages for injuries caused by a domestic animal was upon a theory of strict liability, whereby the plaintiff must establish that the domestic animal had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the domestic animal’s vicious propensities, which the plaintiff did not allege here. …

* * * The evidence submitted raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell due to the condition of the floor and whether the cow’s subsequent contact with the plaintiff was causally related to the condition of the floor. Gomez v Wickham, 2025 NY Slip Op 02760, Second Dept 5-7-25

Practice Point: Just because a plaintiff’s injuries are caused by an animal, here a cow falling on plaintiff, does not require that plaintiff’s lawsuit be brought under animal law (strict liability based on the animal’s vicious propensities). Plaintiff successfully alleged, under a negligence theory, that both he and the cow fell because of the slippery condition of the floor.

 

,

OVERRULING A 2006 OPINION, A PLAINTIFF IN A DOG-BITE ACTION CAN NOW SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division in this dog-bite case, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Halligan, reinstating the strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action, overruled the 2006 Court of Appeals case holding that there is no common-law liability for injury caused by a domestic animal:

Plaintiff Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, was bitten by a dog owned by Defendants Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow while delivering a package to their residence. She commenced this action to recover damages for her injuries, asserting causes of action sounding in strict liability and negligence. Both causes of action were dismissed, and Flanders asks us to reinstate them.

Under settled law, an owner of a domestic animal who has actual or constructive knowledge of their animal’s vicious propensities will be held strictly liable for harm caused as a result of those propensities. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the Goodfellows had constructive knowledge of their dog’s vicious propensities, and so summary judgment should not have been granted to them on the strict liability cause of action.

The lower courts dismissed Flanders’s negligence cause of action as barred by Bard v Jahnke (6 NY3d 592 [2006]), which held that there can be no common-law negligence liability when a domestic animal causes harm. Experience has shown that this rule is in tension with ordinary tort principles, unworkable, and, in some circumstances, unfair. Continued adherence to Bard therefore would not achieve the stability, predictability, and uniformity in the application of the law that the doctrine of stare decisis seeks to promote. Accordingly, we overrule Bard to the extent that it bars negligence liability for harm caused by domestic animals, and reinstate Flanders’s negligence cause of action. * * *

Our decision today means that there is a two-pronged approach to liability for harms caused by animals … .. A plaintiff who suffers an animal-induced injury therefore has a choice. If the owner knew or should have known the animal had vicious propensities, the plaintiff may seek to hold them strictly liable. Or they can rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care under the circumstances that caused their injury. Of course, a plaintiff might also assert both theories of liability … .  Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261, CtApp 4-17-25

Practice Point: A plaintiff in a dog-bite case can now assert both strict liability and common-law negligence causes of action.

 

, ,

THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING DEFENDANT WITH “FAILURE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY SUSTENANCE” FOR A DOG, AN A MISDEMEANOR, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY NONHEARSAY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS; INSTRUMENT DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the accusatory instrument charging defendant with “failure to provide necessary sustenance” for a dog was facially insufficient because no nonhearsay factual allegations supporting the charge were provided: The statute at issue is Agriculture and Markets Laws (AML) section 353:

“A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution” … . We evaluate the accusatory instrument here under the standard applicable to a misdemeanor information. In accordance with CPL 100.40, “[a] misdemeanor information must set forth ‘nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged’ ” … . This requirement is jurisdictional, and an accusatory instrument that falls short must be dismissed … . “[T]he test for whether a flaw in an accusatory instrument is jurisdictional is. . . whether the accusatory instrument failed to supply defendant with sufficient notice of the charged crime to satisfy the demands of due process and double jeopardy” … . * * *

… [A]n accusatory instrument charging a violation of section 353 need not include documentation from a veterinarian, especially in those cases where the conditions are visible or palpable. The investigator did not allege any facts in support of [an alleged failure to provide veterinary care]. The investigator also failed to describe the conditions under which he first observed [the dog]—splayed in the middle of a traffic lane and barely able to move—which might have allowed for an inference that the dog was mistreated or neglected to the point of being in extremis.

In sum, the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from the accusatory instrument are insufficient to “establish every element of the offense charged” … , that defendant deprived [the dog] of sustenance in violation of AML section 353. People v Farrell, 2025 NY Slip Op 02100 CtApp 4-10-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for some insight into the nature of the nonhearsay factual allegations which must be included in an accusatory instrument charging an A misdemeanor, here a violation of the Agriculture and Markets Law section 353 (failure to provide necessary sustenance for a dog).​

 

THE STRICT LIABILITY THEORY APPLIES HERE WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS KICKED BY DEFENDANT’S HORSE; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHICH HORSE KICKED PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S AWARENESS OF THE RISK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment in this action stemming from defendant being kicked by plaintiff’s horse. There were questions of fact about which of plaintiff’s horses kicked the plaintiff and whether plaintiff was aware of the risk of approaching the horse. Plaintiff was familiar with the horses and defendant had called plaintiff because two of the horses were fighting. The court rejected the argument that negligence, as opposed to strict liability, was the applicable theory:

Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7) classifies horses as domestic animals, and ” ‘[w]hen harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule’ . . . of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities” … (quoting Bard v Jahnke, 6 NY3d 592, 599 [2006] …) . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the exception to that rule set forth in Hastings v Sauve (21 NY3d 122, 125-126 [2013]) does not apply here, inasmuch as the horse did not stray from defendant’s property .. . Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, he may not maintain a negligence claim against defendant under the reasoning of Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541 [2020]). In that case, the Court of Appeals held that the Bard rule, set forth above, does not apply to a veterinary clinic … . The Court reasoned that the Bard “line of precedent concerning animal owners [was not] directly implicated” in Hewitt … . By contrast, inasmuch as defendant was the owner of the horse that injured plaintiff, the Bard rule of strict liability applies here. Shuttleworth v Cory, 2023 NY Slip Op 06635, Fourth Dept 12-22-23

Practice Point: Strict liability, not negligence, controls in this horse-kick case. The recent Court of Appeals applications of a negligence theory to injury caused by animals do not apply here.

 

, , ,

A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a comprehensive opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined that a canine sniff of a person to detect drugs is a search. The Fourth Department had reversed County Court and held that the canine sniff constituted a search. But the Fourth Department went on to apply the “reasonable suspicion” standard to whether the search was justified and found that standard had been met by the facts. Because County Count had not ruled on the correct standard for a sniff-search (County Court held the sniff was not a search), the Fourth Department did not have the authority rule against the defendant on that issue. The matter was sent back to County Court for rulings on what the correct standard is and whether that standard was met by the events preceding the sniff-search in this case:

… [W]e conclude that the canine sniff of defendant’s person qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment. * * *

The second question presented by this appeal is whether the Appellate Division could decide that a canine sniff search of a person requires reasonable suspicion and was justified in this case. We conclude that the Appellate Division lacked jurisdiction to resolve those issues because County Court did not decide them adversely to defendant (see LaFontaine, 92 NY2d at 473-474). * * *

County Court held that the canine sniff of defendant’s person did not qualify as a search. The court did not decide the standard that would govern if the canine sniff did so qualify, much less whether that standard was met. Those questions present “separate” and “analytically distinct” issues from the threshold question of whether the sniff implicated constitutional protections or prohibitions … . The Appellate Division therefore erred in deciding those questions adversely to defendant…. . People v Butler, 2023 NY Slip Op 06468, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: A canine sniff for drugs on a person is a search. The correct standard justifying such a search has not been determined.

Practice Point: If an issue has not been addressed by the lower court, the appellate court is powerless to rule adversely to the defendant on that issue. Here County Court had held that a canine sniff is not a search and therefore never ruled on the correct standard for such a search. The Appellate Division (which reversed County Court on whether the sniff is a search) could not decide what the correct standard for the search was and then rule that the standard had been met, because that ruling was adverse to the defendant. The matter was sent back to the County Court for a ruling.

 

,

THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion by Justice Genovesi, reversing Supreme Court, determined the strict liability “notice-of-vicious-propensity” requirement applied to a restaurant which allowed patrons to bring their leashed dogs. Here the infant plaintiff was bitten by a patron’s dog. The negligence cause of action was not dismissed by Supreme Court pursuant to a recent Court of Appeals decision which held that a veterinarian’s office could be sued in negligence by a patron bitten by another patron’s dog. The Second Department refused to extend the Court of Appeals ruling re: a veterinarian to a restaurant owner:

On this appeal, we are presented with the opportunity to examine the extent to which the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Hewitt v Palmer Veterinary Clinic, PC (35 NY3d 541), serves to alter the standard applied in actions to recover damages for personal injuries caused by domesticated animals. Specifically, we address those actions commenced against individuals other than the animal’s owner. In Hewitt, the Court of Appeals engaged in an intensely fact-specific inquiry wherein it determined that the vicious propensities notice requirement is not necessary in a negligence action against a veterinary practice or other such places with “specialized knowledge relating to animal behavior” (id. at 548). We conclude that the holding of Hewitt, in line with the jurisprudence of this area of law, does not serve to carve out a path for ordinary negligence actions against all premises owners, in contravention of the vicious propensities notice requirement. Cantore v Costantine, 2023 NY Slip Op 05708, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Although the Court of Appeals recently held standard negligence principles could be applied to a dog bite in a veterinarian’s office, here the strict liability “notice of vicious propensities” requirement applied to a restaurant owner who allows patrons to bring their leashed dogs into the restaurant.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL FROM A HORSE, COULD SUE UNDER STANDARD PRINCIPLES OF NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO THE STRICT LIABILITY THEORY IN THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SUIT WAS PRECLUDED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined standard negligence principles, not strict liability, applied to this falling-off-a-horse case. Plaintiff, who fell from the horse when the horse stopped suddenly, assumed the risk of such an injury:

Defendant argues that, because the injury at issue was caused by a horse — a domestic animal — plaintiff may only sue in strict liability (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 [7]; … ). However, where a plaintiff suffers injuries stemming from horseback riding, such as here, the plaintiff may bring suit against the owner of the horse under traditional negligence standards … . Regardless, the primary assumption of risk doctrine functions as a “principle of no duty,” serving to “den[y] the existence of any underlying cause of action” … . Stanhope v Burke, 2023 NY Slip Op 05427, Third Dept 10-26-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff could maintain a standard negligence action against to owner of a horse stemming from plaintiff’s fall from the horse, as opposed to a strict liability action pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law.

Practice Point: Whether plaintiff sued in negligence or strict liability, the assumption of risk doctrine would apply to preclude the action.

 

,

IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF HER DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant dog-owner’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should have been granted. Defendant made a prima facie showing she was not aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. Plaintiff did not raise a question of fact on that issue:

Even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must, we find that plaintiff failed to raise an issue so as to defeat the motion. As to the statement that the dogs were play fighting, the child admitted that she was unfamiliar with dogs and that she assumed because they were growling that they were fighting or at least unhappy with “what’s [going on] around them.” However, “[n]o court has found that a dog’s growling at one or two other dogs is sufficient to establish vicious propensities” … . Growling and barking during play activities among dogs is consistent with normal canine behavior … . Even if the growling could be considered some indication of vicious propensities, the child never identified the dog that bit her as being the dog that she heard growling. As to the statement that the dog dislikes males, the child testified that defendant’s son told me “something about [the dogs] not liking guys, but as a joke.” This is not proof of an aggressive behavior and, in any event, does not relate to the child because she is a female … . The mere fact that defendant kenneled the dog, and kept the dog in her bedroom when she was absent from her residence, does not support an inference that defendant was aware the dog might pose a danger, since there was no evidence that this was done due to a concern that the dog would harm someone … ; instead defendant’s son stated that the dogs were kenneled because the puppies might escape. Additionally, it is undisputed that the dog was not confined, gated or tethered while the child was at the residence and in fact the child encouraged the dog to jump up on the bed next to her so she could pet it … . J.S. v Mott, 2023 NY Slip Op 03276, Third Dept 6-15-23

Practice Point: This is a fact-based dog-bite case. Plaintiff’s allegations in opposition to defendant dog-owner’s summary judgment motion did not raise a question of fact about whether defendant was aware of her dog’s vicious propensities.

 

THE MAJORITY IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE DETERMINED DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE THE DOG HAD NEVER EXHIBITED VICIOUS BEHAVIOR BEFORE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should not have been granted. The dissenters argued defendant demonstrated she did not have knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities:

… [D]efendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony that, while plaintiff was at defendant’s door, the dog came running and was barking, pushed the door open, and lunged at plaintiff, biting him in the right thigh. After plaintiff was on the ground, having been knocked to the bottom of the front steps, the dog bit the back of plaintiff’s left leg and then his calf. Plaintiff further testified that, immediately after the incident, defendant told plaintiff, who was wearing a winter coat at the time of the attack, that “the dog doesn’t like people who wear coats.” Plaintiff also testified that defendant told him that “the dog was protective.” Defendant further submitted the deposition testimony of defendant Jennifer McMahon, who lived in the home and was familiar with the dog, that the dog was “protective” of the persons who lived in the home and that, when a stranger was present in the house, the dog would get in front of a member of the household to protect him or her. That evidence, combined with the evidence of the unprovoked and vicious nature of the attack and the severity of the injuries sustained by plaintiff, is “sufficient to raise triable issues of fact as to whether the dog[] had vicious propensities and whether. . . defendant[] knew or should have known of them” … .

From the dissent:

… [D]efendant’s submissions in support of the motion, including the deposition testimony of defendant and the tenant, establish that the dog was a gentle, well-behaved family dog, who was not aggressive, menacing, or intimidating, was not a guard dog, and had never growled at, nipped, or bitten anyone before … . Neither defendant nor the tenant had ever observed the dog exhibit any aggressive behavior in the past. In sum, defendant established that the dog had not previously behaved in a threatening or menacing manner … .

The majority nonetheless cites evidence in defendant’s submissions that defendant and the tenant characterized the dog as protective and having a dislike of people wearing coats, but conspicuously absent from the majority’s analysis is any explanation of how these characteristics reflect a ” ‘propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation’ ” … . Zicari v Buckley, 2023 NY Slip Op 00788, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: The majority in this dog-bite case held that the defendant did not demonstrate she had no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities. The two dissenters disagreed.

 

, , , ,

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, INCLUDING THE LANDLORD, WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; THE PRE-DISCOVERY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE; THE ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants in this dog-bite case were not entitled to summary judgment, the action was not frivolous, and defendants were not entitled to attorney’s fees. In addition, the summary judgment motion, made before discovery, was deemed premature. The court found there were questions of fact whether defendants, including the landlord (held to an ordinary negligence standard) were aware of the dog’s vicious propensities. The relationships among the parties and the unsuccessful arguments made by defendants in support of summary judgment are too detailed to fairly summarize here:

… “[A]n owner of a dog may be liable for injuries caused by that animal only when the owner had or should have had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities” … . “Once such knowledge is established, an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” … . “Strict liability can also be imposed against a person other than the owner of an animal which causes injury if that person harbors or keeps the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensit[ies]” … .

… “[A] landlord who, with knowledge that a prospective tenant has a vicious dog which will be kept on the premises, nonetheless leases the premises to such tenant without taking reasonable measures, by pertinent provisions in the lease or otherwise, to protect persons who might be on the premises from being attacked by the dog may be held liable [under a negligence standard] to a person who while thereafter on the premises is bitten by the dog” … . When, “during the term of the leasehold[,] a landlord becomes aware of the fact that [the] tenant is harboring an animal with vicious propensities, [the landlord] owes a duty to protect third persons from injury . . . if [the landlord] ‘had control of the premises or other capability to remove or confine the animal’ ” … . Michael P. v Dombroski, 2022 NY Slip Op 07318, Fourth Dept 12-23-22

Practice Point: A landlord who is aware of a dog’s vicious propensities can be held liable in a dog-bite case under a standard negligence theory.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy