You are here: / Animal Law
, ,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that the assumption of the risk doctrine and the signed release did not warrant summary judgment in favor of defendant in this horseback-riding injury case. Plaintiff fell from a horse during a riding lesson:

… [I]t is undisputed that plaintiff was a beginner and had never before attempted to mount or ride a horse, and the deposition testimony relied upon by defendants raises questions of fact whether defendants unreasonably increased the risks associated with mounting the horse by failing to give plaintiff adequate instructions and assistance based on her size, athleticism, and obvious struggles in attempting to mount the horse, and whether there were concealed risks of mounting the horse, i.e., whether the horse was “tacked” properly … . For the same reasons, we reject defendants’ contention, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the written release established as a matter of law that, as per the language of the release, plaintiff expressly assumed “the unavoidable risks inherent in all horse-related activities” … .  Jones v Smoke Tree Farm, 2018 NY Slip Op 03299, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

​NEGLIGENCE (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/HORSES (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/ASSUMPTION OF RISK (HORSES, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/RELEASE (HORSE RIDING LESSONS, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A HORSE DURING A RIDING LESSON, NEITHER THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE NOR THE SIGNED RELEASED WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT HORSE FARM, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the evidence was legally sufficient to support the assault first conviction stemming from defendant’s allowing his dog to attack the victim. The court noted that the motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of the People’s case was adequate to preserve the challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence of intent, even though the renewal of the motion at the close of evidence referred to the earlier motion:

The conviction arises from a dog attack that caused the victim to sustain injuries that included broken bones in his hands and the amputation of a portion of one of his fingers. The victim as well as witnesses to the attack testified that two pit bull terriers that had escaped their owner’s property attacked the victim, biting at his arms and legs, as the victim attempted to protect his dog from the pit bulls. Defendant, who was a friend of the owner of the pit bulls, arrived at the scene in a van driven by another man. Defendant exited the van, retrieved the two pit bulls and placed them in the van. After the pit bulls were secured in the van, the victim stood in front of the van and angrily told defendant that the police had been called and “you’re not going anywhere.” Defendant responded by asking the victim, “you coming at me? Are you going to stop me from leaving?” At that point defendant opened the van door and issued a command to the larger pit bull, who attacked the victim a second time, inflicting the injuries to the victim’s hands.

Defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction inasmuch as the People failed to prove that he intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim … . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People … , we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish such intent … . People v Bacon, 2018 NY Slip Op 03258, Fourth Dept 5-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT/DOGS (CRIMINAL LAW, DOG ATTACK, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIND A FOSTER HOME FOR A FAMILY’S PET CAT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, determined the Department of Social Services made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for the temporary removal of the children while the neglect petition is pending. The court noted that Family Court did not have the power to find a foster home for the family’s cat:

… [T]he court lacked the authority to order it to find a foster home for respondents’ cat, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction that cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” … , or by the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art VI, § 13). Inasmuch as animals are property … , and Family Court does not have jurisdiction over matters concerning personal property, we conclude that the court exceeded its authority in directing petitioner to find foster care for respondents’ cat. Matter of Ruth H. (Marie H.), 2018 NY Slip Op 01840, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

FAMILY LAW (PETS, FOSTER CARE, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIND A FOSTER HOME FOR A FAMILY’S PET CAT (FOURTH DEPT))/FOSTER CARE (FAMILY LAW, PETS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIND A FOSTER HOME FOR A FAMILY’S PET CAT (FOURTH DEPT))/PETS (FAMILY LAW, FOSTER CARE, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIND A FOSTER HOME FOR A FAMILY’S PET CAT (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the duty to keep a state park safe is a proprietary function, not a governmental function. The governmental immunity doctrine does not apply. Therefore the claimant’s motion for summary judgment based upon his being bitten by a rabid fox in a park was properly granted:

“The relevant inquiry in determining whether a governmental agency is acting within a governmental or proprietary capacity is to examine . . . the specific act or omission out of which the injury is claimed to have arisen and the capacity in which that act or failure to act occurred’ ” … .

Here, claimant’s injuries allegedly resulted from defendant’s negligent failure to take adequate steps to protect park patrons from reasonably foreseeable danger, despite having actual notice of a potentially rabid animal on the park premises hours before the incident. “It is well settled that regardless of whether or not it is a source of income the operation of a public park by a municipality is a quasi-private or corporate and not a governmental function”… . Further, “a municipality is under a duty to maintain its park . . . facilities in a reasonably safe condition” … . That “duty goes beyond the mere maintenance of the physical condition of the park . . . and, although strict or immediate supervision need not be provided, the municipality may be obliged to furnish an adequate degree of general supervision which may require the regulation or prevention of such activities [or other conditions] as endanger others utilizing the park” … . Thus, we conclude that the court properly determined that claimants’ allegations that defendant failed “to minimize the risk posed with a relevant warning and effective notification to the [p]ark [p]olice” implicated defendant’s proprietary, not governmental, duties. Agness v State of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01747, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

COURT OF CLAIMS (PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/IMMUNITY (PARK SAFETY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW  (PARK SAFETY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/PROPRIETARY FUNCTION  (PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/PARKS (COURT OF CLAIMS, PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RABID ANIMALS (PARK SAFETY, IMMUNITY, ANIMAL LAW, PARK SAFETY IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY A RABID FOX IN A STATE PARK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

TWO ATTACKS MINUTES APART CONSTITUTED A SINGLE EVENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted and defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this dog bite case. Defendant Garrett was dog-sitting Lily, a pit bull owned by defendant Hunt, in a fenced yard. Plaintiff brought her dog, Chloe, into the yard and Lily lunged at Chloe. A few minutes later Lily again lunged at Chloe and plaintiff was bitten. The Fourth Department found that the two attacks constituted a single event and defendants demonstrated they were not aware of Lily’s vicious propensities:

… [D]efendants established as a matter of law that they lacked actual or constructive knowledge that Lily had any vicious propensities … . We agree with defendants that the confrontation between the dogs was only one event, rather than two separate incidents as found by the court. Given the fact that only minutes passed between the two confrontations, we conclude that defendants did not acquire actual or constructive notice of any vicious propensities based on the initial confrontation. We likewise conclude that the court erred in denying that part of defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action. It is well settled that ” [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’ ” … . Russell v Hunt, 2018 NY Slip Op 00750, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

ANIMAL LAW (TWO ATTACKS MINUTES APART CONSTITUTED A SINGLE EVENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/DOG BITES (TWO ATTACKS MINUTES APART CONSTITUTED A SINGLE EVENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this dog bite case should have been granted. Defendants demonstrated they did not have actual or constructive notice of the dog’s vicious propensities:

​

Since at least 1816 … , “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” … . … ‘[T]here is no cause of action in negligence as against the owner of a dog who causes injury, but one may assert a claim in strict liability against a dog owner for harm caused by the dog’s vicious propensities when the owner knew or should have known of those propensities” … . S.K. v Kobee, 2018 NY Slip Op 00770, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

ANIMAL LAW (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/DOG BITES (DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this car-animal accident case should not have been granted. Although, based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the presence of defendants’ black angus bull in the roadway may have constituted negligence, plaintiff did not demonstrate she could not have avoided the accident by lowering her speed on that dark and rainy night:

Cattle are classified as “domestic animal[s]” in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7), and it is well established that “a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal—i.e., a domestic animal as that term is defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (7)—is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept” … . Here, “defendants were in exclusive control of the [bull] and the fences surrounding the pasture where [it was] kept” and, because cattle “do not generally wander unattended on public streets in the absence of negligence”… , we conclude that the court properly inferred defendants’ negligence as a starting point in determining their motion.

We further conclude that defendants failed to rebut the inference of negligence inasmuch as they failed to submit proof that “the animal’s presence on the [road] was not caused by [their] negligence” … , or “that something outside of [defendants’] control” allowed the bull to escape … . …

​

Plaintiff’s burden on her motion was to establish both that defendants were negligent as a matter of law, and that she was free of comparative fault … . Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff met her burden with respect to defendants’ alleged negligence, we conclude that she failed to meet her burden with respect to her own alleged comparative negligence. … [T]here is an issue of fact whether slower travel would have enabled plaintiff to avoid the collision, and that issue must be determined by a jury … . Catalano v Heiden Val. Farms, 2018 NY Slip Op 00759, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

NEGLIGENCE (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (ESCAPED ANIMALS, PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (ESCAPED ANIMALS,  PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, upheld for the most part a preliminary injunction placing restrictions on protests by animal rights advocates against Central Park Sightseeing which operates horse-drawn carriages in New York City’s Central Park. The court found that Central Park Sightseeing was likely to prevail on its public nuisance and tortious interference with contract causes of action. The First Department modified the injunction’s “floating buffer zone” provision, paragraph 3, however:

​

The court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to the extent of enjoining and restraining defendants “and/or anyone else who becomes aware of this Decision and Order” from

“1. physically blocking, impeding, or obstructing any persons from seeking or taking, or providing … a lawful horse-carriage ride disembarking from Central Park South …;

“2. physically touching, pushing, shoving, or grabbing any such persons or horses;

“3. yelling or shouting at, or aggressively accosting, any such persons, or any carriage horses, from a distance of less than nine feet (… three yards…);

“4. physically blocking, impeding, or obstructing the progress of any such horse-carriage ride;

“5. handing literature to persons situated within a horse carriage; and

“6. counseling, facilitating, aiding, or abetting any other person from doing such things.”

The court made it clear that “[b]oth sides agree that defendants can protest, including picket, hold signs, hand out literature, bear witness, and raise their voices,” noting that “the content of the speech is not at issue here; the manner of delivery is.” …

​

We … modify paragraph 3 of the injunction to prohibit any person from knowingly approaching within nine feet of another person in the loading/unloading zone, without that person’s consent, for the purpose of handing a leaflet or bill or displaying a sign or engaging in oral protest or education of such other person … . * * *

​

The nine-foot zone represents a “conversational distance,” allowing normal communication … . Central Park Sightseeing LLC v New Yorkers for Clean, Livable & Safe Sts., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08619, First Dept 12-7-17

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FIRST AMENDMENT, PUBLIC PROTEST, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (PUBLIC PROTEST, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (ANIMAL RIGHTS, PUBLIC PROTESTS, FIRST AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/FIRST AMENDMENT (PUBLIC PROTEST, ANIMAL LAW, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/FREE SPEECH (PUBLIC PROTEST, ANIMAL LAW, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, FIRST AMENDMENT, PUBLIC PROTEST, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/INJUNCTION  (FIRST AMENDMENT, PUBLIC PROTEST, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))/BUFFER ZONE  (FIRST AMENDMENT, PUBLIC PROTEST, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REGULATING PROTESTS BY ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AGAINST A CENTRAL PARK HORSE-DRAWN CARRIAGE SIGHTSEEING BUSINESS UPHELD, BUFFER ZONE PROVISION MODIFIED TO COMPORT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department determined the city, which operated an animal shelter, was not liable for a dog-bite injury to infant plaintiff. The Second Department held that the operation of the shelter was a government function and there was no special relationship between the city and the plaintiff. Therefore the city was entitled to immunity from liability:

It is undisputed that the City operates the Shelter pursuant to a statutory mandate. Specifically, Agriculture and Markets Law § 114 (former § 115) requires, inter alia, that each town or city that issues dog licenses “shall . . . establish and maintain a pound or shelter for dogs” … . This provision is contained in article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law, which states that the purpose of the article “is to provide for the licensing and identification of dogs, the control and protection of the dog population and the protection of persons, property, domestic animals and deer from dog attack and damage” … .

The City’s act of providing an animal shelter constitutes a governmental function and, therefore, it cannot be held liable absent the existence of a special relationship between it and the plaintiffs giving rise to a special duty of care … . ” A special relationship can be formed in three ways: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation'” … . Abrahams v City of Mount Vernon, 2017 NY Slip Op 05699, 2nd Dept 7-19-17

ANIMAL LAW (CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (ANIMAL SHELTER, DOG BITE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)/IMMUNITY (CITY ANIMAL SHELTER, DOG BITE, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)/DOG BITES (MUNICIPAL LAW, CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT)

,

CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, determined two chimpanzees. Tommy and Kiko, were not entitled to orders transferring them from cages to a sanctuary, using the rationale behind habeas corpus. The main reason underlying the decision is the fact that similar requests for relief had been denied by other courts and nothing new was presented in support of the instant requests for relief. The court, however, did run through the arguments in support of the applicability of habeas corpus criteria in this context (not all of which are summarized here):

​

“The common law writ of habeas corpus, as codified by CPLR article 70, provides a summary procedure by which a person’ who has been illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his or her liberty can challenge the legality of the detention” … . While the word “person” is not defined in the statute, there is no support for the conclusion that the definition includes nonhumans, i.e., chimpanzees. While petitioner’s cited studies attest to the intelligence and social capabilities of chimpanzees, petitioner does not cite any sources indicating that the United States or New York Constitutions were intended to protect nonhuman animals’ rights to liberty, or that the Legislature intended the term “person” in CPLR article 70 to expand the availability of habeas protection beyond humans. No precedent exists, under New York law, or English common law, for a finding that a chimpanzee could be considered a “person” and entitled to habeas relief. In fact, habeas relief has never been found applicable to any animal… .

The asserted cognitive and linguistic capabilities of chimpanzees do not translate to a chimpanzee’s capacity or ability, like humans, to bear legal duties, or to be held legally accountable for their actions. Petitioner does not suggest that any chimpanzee charged with a crime in New York could be deemed fit to proceed, i.e., to have the “capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense” (CPL 730.10[1]). While in an amicus brief filed by Professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, it is suggested that it is possible to impose legal duties on nonhuman animals, noting the “long history, mainly from the medieval and early modern periods, of animals being tried for offenses such as attacking human beings and eating crops,” none of the cases cited took place in modern times or in New York. Moreover, as noted in an amicus brief submitted by Professor Richard Cupp, nonhumans lack sufficient responsibility to have any legal standing, which, according to Cupp is why even chimpanzees who have caused death or serious injury to human beings have not been prosecuted. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v Lavery, 2017 NY Slip Op 04574, 1st Dept  6-8-17

 

ANIMAL LAW (CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ANIMAL LAW, HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/ANIMAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/HABEAS CORPUS (CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)/CHIMPANZEES (HABEAS CORPUS, CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF)

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