You are here: / Animal Law
, , ,

THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING AMENDMENTS ACT AND THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY’S RULES REQUIRED THAT THE HEARING OFFICER CONSIDER PETITIONER-TENANT’S ACCOMMODATION REQUEST TO KEEP AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOG IN HIS APARTMENT, THE HEARING OFFICER HAD RULED THE DOG WAS VICIOUS AND MUST BE REMOVED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ACCOMMODATION REQUEST, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department sent the matter back for a determination by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) of petitioner’s accommodation request to keep an emotional support dog in his apartment. The dog had apparently bitten a NYCHA employee and the NYCHA alleged the presence of “vicious” dog violated the lease. Before the hearing, petitioner, who suffers from schizophrenia, requested that he be permitted to register the dog, Onyx, as an emotional support dog. The Hearing Officer ruled that petitioner could not keep the dog, but did not reach the accommodation request:

Under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), it is unlawful discrimination for a housing provider to “refus[e] to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling” (42 USC § 3604[f][3][B]). Federal regulations exempt “animals that assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities” from public housing authority pet rules (24 CFR § 960.705[a]). Accordingly, respondent is obligated by both federal law and its own rules to accommodate petitioner’s request to maintain his emotional support animal, Onyx, so long as petitioner meets his burden of showing that his dog assists him with aspects of his disability. …

Federal regulations provide that a housing provider can only invoke the direct threat exception after conducting an individualized and objective assessment of the relevant factors, including (1) the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; (2) the probability that the potential [*3]injury will actually occur; and (3) whether any reasonable accommodations will mitigate the risk (24 CFR § 9.131[c]). The “direct threat” analysis has been applied to cases in which a person with a disability is seeking to maintain an emotional support pet as a reasonable accommodation … . Matter of Washington v Olatoye, 2019 NY Slip Op 04644, First Dept 6-11-19

 

BARKING AND STRAINING AT THE LEASH CONSTITUTE NORMAL CANINE BEHAVIOR AND DID NOT SERVE TO MAKE DEFENDANTS AWARE OF THE DOG’S ALLEGED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case was properly granted. The fact that defendants were aware the dog had barked at plaintiff and her dog and strained at his leash did not demonstrate defendants were aware of defendants’ dog’s vicious propensities:

Here, the … defendants … established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the dog did not have vicious propensities and, in any event, that they neither knew nor should have known that the dog had vicious propensities … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the dog had vicious propensities. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, her deposition testimony that the dog barked at her and her dog and that the dog strained its leash toward her dog was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had vicious propensities … . Moreover, regardless of whether the Beach Haven defendants were aware of the behavior the plaintiff described in her testimony, it was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the Beach Haven defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s allegedly vicious propensities. The dog’s actions in barking at another dog and pulling its leash are “consistent with normal canine behavior” … . Bukhtiyarova v Cohen, 2019 NY Slip Op 03945, Second Dept 5-22-19

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF-TENANT IS DISABLED BY DEPRESSION, DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S REFUSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO KEEP AN EMOTIONAL SUPPORT DOG IN HIS APARTMENT CONSTITUTED DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, THE LANDLORD’S LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S LEASE TERM TO THREE MONTHS CONSTITUTED IMPERMISSIBLE RETALIATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff-tenant’s discrimination and retaliation claims against defendant landlord should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff demonstrated his need for an emotional support dog (he suffers from debilitating depression) and further demonstrated the landlord’s denial of his request to keep a dog was discriminatory, and the landlord’s reduction of the lease term to three months constituted impermissible retaliation:

… [T]he parties have strictly limited their arguments on appeal on the question of discrimination to two narrow and carefully circumscribed issues: (1) whether defendant has a qualifying disability within the meaning of the FHA [Fair Housing Act] and the HRL [Human Rights Law] and (2) whether the accommodation he requested was “necessary to afford [him] equal opportunity to use and enjoy [his] dwelling” as provided in the statutes (42 USC § 3604 [f] [3] [B]; see Executive Law § 296 [18] [2]). * * *

… [B]ased upon defendant’s significant limitations in the major life activities of working and interacting with others, we are satisfied that he is disabled within the meaning of the FHA … . …

The HRL’s definition of disability is broader than those used in the federal disability statutes … . The HRL does not require a showing of a limitation in a major life activity, but instead defines disability, as pertinent here, as “a physical, mental or medical impairment . . . [that] is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques” (Executive Law § 292 [21] [a]). Defendant’s therapist, a clinical psychologist, testified in some detail regarding the clinical techniques used to diagnose depression and defendant’s specific symptoms … . …

… [W]e find that defendant “offered sufficient evidence that having [an emotional support] dog would affirmatively enhance his quality of life by ameliorating the effects of his disability,” and thus demonstrated necessity within the meaning of the FHA and the HRL … . * * *

We are satisfied that plaintiff’s actions were sufficiently adverse to constitute interference with the exercise of defendant’s rights. Notably, discrimination against a disabled person in the terms or conditions of a lease is prohibited by the FHA and its implementing regulations … . Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel, 2019 NY Slip Op 03718, Third Dept 5-9-19

 

, ,

LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord’s motion for summary judgment in this dog-bite case should have been granted. The landlord was aware the tenant had a dog, and could have required the removal of the dog, but was not aware whether the dog had vicious propensities. The court noted that theories of common-law negligence are not applicable:

It is well established that ” [t]o recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog on a theory of strict liability, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the landlord: (1) had notice that a dog was being harbored on the premises[,] (2) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities, and (3) had sufficient control of the premises to allow the landlord to remove or confine the dog’ ” … . Here, it is undisputed that defendant was aware that a dog was kept on the premises by his tenants and that he could have required them to remove or confine the dog. Nevertheless, defendant met his initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that he lacked actual or constructive knowledge that his tenants’ dog had any vicious propensities … .

Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint includes a negligence cause of action, we conclude that the court erred in failing to dismiss that cause of action inasmuch as “[c]ases involving injuries inflicted by domestic animals may only proceed under strict liability based on the owner’s knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensities, not on theories of common-law negligence” … . Toher v Duchnycz, 2019 NY Slip Op 03487, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

,

JURY INSTRUCTIONS ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE CONVICTED ON A THEORY THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IN THIS ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S HAVING COMPLETED HIS SENTENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court in the interest of justice, determined the jury instructions in this animal cruelty case allowed a conviction on a theory that was not included in the indictment. A new trial was ordered, despite defendant’s having served his sentence:

As the People essentially concede, the court’s jury charge constructively amended the indictment … . The indictment was limited to a theory that defendant personally mistreated his dog. However, the court read Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 to the jury almost in its entirety, including a provision that would allow the jury to convict defendant if he merely permitted another person to mistreat his dog. Unlike ordinary accessorial liability under Penal Law § 20.00, this theory of “permitting” is an entirely different way of committing the crime from personally mistreating the animal. This error was not harmless, because there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could have inferred that defendant took the blame for his dog’s condition to cover for his uncle, who lived with defendant and made inconsistent statements about whether he witnessed defendant beating the dog.

However, the fact that defendant has completed his sentence does not warrant dismissal of the indictment. That approach is suitable only in cases of “relatively minor crimes”  … , and this case involves “serious” allegations  …of abusing an animal. Accordingly, we remand for a new trial. People v Gentles, 2019 NY Slip Op 02623, First Dept 4-4-19

 

, ,

NYS STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS’ DETERMINATION THAT THE DISABLED COOPERATIVE SHAREHOLDER WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN SHE WAS PROHIBITED FROM KEEPING A DOG IN HER COOPERATIVE APARTMENT CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, REVERSING THE APPELLATE DIVISION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, over a two-judge dissent, in a brief memorandum that did not recite the facts, reversed the Appellate Division and confirmed the NYS Division of Human Rights (SDHR) determination that petitioners had discriminated against the disabled complainant, a cooperative shareholder, by prohibiting her from keeping a dog in the cooperative apartment. Matter of Delkap Mgt., Inc. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2019 NY Slip Op 02260, CtApp 3-26-19

​SUMMARY OF THE FACTS FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DECISION (WHICH THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED HERE):

The complainant testified that, since obtaining the dog, her cardiac arrhythmia, which caused her to have rapid heart rate and experience palpitations, had significantly decreased; her ability to sleep had improved, resulting in her feeling less tired during the day; her discomfort due to her rheumatoid arthritis had improved because she was more physically active with the dog; and the dog decreased her stress, helping to improve the symptoms caused by her rheumatoid arthritis and cardiac arrhythmia.

Sometime after the hearing concluded, the petitioners directed the complainant to immediately remove her dog from her apartment contending, erroneously, that the SDHR had issued a final order in their favor. The complainant thereafter moved out of her apartment with the dog.

In a recommendation and findings … an administrative law judge (hereinafter ALJ) of the SDHR determined that the Coop had discriminated against the complainant in the terms, conditions, and privileges of her housing on the basis of her disability, and that she should have been allowed to keep the dog in her apartment as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The ALJ also determined that the respondents retaliated against the complainant for opposing the discrimination and filing a complaint with the SDHR. The Acting Commissioner of the SDHR adopted the ALJ’s recommendation and findings and directed the petitioners to pay $5,000 to the complainant in compensatory damages for mental anguish and $10,000 in punitive damages, assessed a $5,000 penalty upon each petitioner payable to the State, and directed the petitioners to create and implement standard policies and procedures to evaluate shareholders’ requests for reasonable accommodations and to develop and implement training to prevent unlawful discrimination.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE DAMAGES AMOUNT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion to vacate the default in this dog-bite case should not have been granted because it was untimely and unsubstantiated, but a full evidentiary hearing was required to determine the appropriate amount of damages:

… [A] court has the “inherent power to set aside excessive awards made upon default,” despite the fact that there is no reasonable excuse for the default … . “An unwarranted and excessive award after inquest will not be sustained, as to do otherwise would be tantamount to granting the plaintiffs an “open season” at the expense of a defaulting defendant'”… . In light of the evidence in the record, including the plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest, which was not supported by any expert testimony, and a police report of the incident which stated that the plaintiff suffered “minor injuries from an animal bite,” there are significant questions as to whether the award of the principal sum of $500,000, consisting of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, was excessive. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to stay enforcement of the default judgment and the settlement agreements based upon that judgment, and to direct further discovery. However, the court also should have stated in its order dated September 21, 2016, that the issues to be determined on the motion to stay enforcement of the default judgment are limited to the issue of damages. Loeffler v Glasgow, 2019 NY Slip Op 01401, Second Dept 2-27-19

 

, , , , ,

POLICE DOG RELEASED TO TRACK SUSPECTS WENT OUT OF THE HANDLER’S SIGHT AND BIT PLAINTIFF, 42 USC 1983, NEGLIGENCE AND BATTERY ACTIONS SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER POLICE OFFICER ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, CITY ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT RULE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined several causes of action property survived summary judgment in this case where a police officer (Ashe) released his K-9 partner (a trained police dog named Elza) which bit plaintiff as he was walking to his car. After Elza was released she ran out of Ashe’s sight. Ashe was attempting to use Elza to track suspects who had just robbed a gas station. The Third Department held, inter aliia, that the 42 USC 1983 action properly survived summary judgment, Ashe was not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, the battery action properly survived summary judgment, and the city was entitled to summary judgment on the common-law negligence action based on the professional judgment rule:

There is at least a question of fact as to whether a reasonable police officer, aware that the dog could not differentiate a suspect from an innocent bystander, would allow the dog to search off leash and out of sight of the handler. Moreover, the record contains evidence from which a jury could find that the City “fail[ed] to train its employees in a relevant respect [that] evidences a deliberate indifference to the rights of its inhabitants[, which] can . . . be properly thought of as a city policy or custom that is actionable under [42 USC] § 1983” … . …

… [P]laintiffs’ expert … opined in his affidavit that Ashe failed to comply with standard police practice, including keeping the K-9 within visual range and providing audible warnings. Based on the foregoing, there are triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment on the issue of Ashe’s entitlement to qualified immunity … . …

… [T]he City was entitled to dismissal of the common-law negligence claims based on the professional judgment rule. ” That rule ‘insulates a municipality from liability for its employees’ performance of their duties where the . . . conduct involves the exercise of professional judgment such as electing one among many acceptable methods of carrying out tasks, or making tactical decisions’ … . Relf v City of Troy, 2019 NY Slip Op 01287, Third Dept 2-21-19

 

​

PLAINTIFF TRAMPLED BY TWO HORSES, STRICT LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s strict liability cause of action in this injury-caused-by-a-horse action should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that he sustained when he was trampled by defendant’s two horses, who broke free while plaintiff was assisting defendant in hitching the horses to a cart. …

“Vicious propensities include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation’ ” … . In support of his motion, defendant submitted plaintiff’s deposition transcript, wherein plaintiff testified that, prior to plaintiff’s injury, defendant stated that “once the horses are kept inside . . . they go crazy in the winter.” Thus, defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether his horses ” had vicious propensities and, if so, whether [he] knew or should have known of those propensities’ ” … . Bavifard v Capretto, 2019 NY Slip Op 00756, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

,

VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence in this dog bite case was properly denied. Infant plaintiff was bitten in the face when the dog jumped and attempted to bite the food in plaintiff’s hand. The jury found that the dog did not have vicious propensities. The evidence that the dog only became excited and rambunctious around food supported the jury’s verdict:

Pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a court may set aside a jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence. A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence when ” the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [movant] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence'” … . “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . The discretionary power to set aside a jury verdict must be exercised with considerable caution, “for in the absence of indications that substantial justice has not been done, a successful litigant is entitled to the benefits of a favorable jury verdict”… . Additionally, in making this determination courts should keep in mind that “[i]t is within the province of the jury to determine issues of credibility, and great deference is accorded to the jury given its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses” … .

To recover in strict liability for damages caused by a dog bite, a plaintiff must prove that ” the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities'” … . This knowledge may be established with evidence of “prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice” … . However, “normal canine behavior” does not establish vicious propensities, and “rambunctious behavior will show awareness of a vicious propensity only if it is the very behavior that resulted in [a] plaintiff’s injury” … . M.B. v Hanson, 2019 NY Slip Op 00106, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

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