Animal Law – Page 9 – New York Appellate Digest

Questions of Fact Existed Re: Whether Plaintiffs Were Entitled to Rely on Defendant’s Assurances Dog Was Not Aggressive

Plaintiff was seriously injured by a dog procured from defendant after defendant had assured plaintiffs the dog (Brutus) was not aggressive. The Third Department determined plaintiffs were entitled to rely on defendant’s assurances, in spite of three minor biting incidents when the dog was in plaintiffs’ possession:

Defendants argue that because Brutus bit plaintiffs three times prior to the attack that is the subject of the complaint, plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on defendants’ representations as to the dog’s behavior and cannot state a claim for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. Defendants also argue that those causes of action must fail because plaintiffs could have learned of Brutus’ aggressive nature with due diligence. We are not persuaded. In order to establish their claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they justifiably relied on defendants’ misrepresentations … . Here, plaintiffs allege that they would not have adopted Brutus if they had been told the truth regarding his prior owner’s reason for turning him over to the Center. Plaintiffs also allege that, after the three biting incidents, they sought the assistance of trainers to deal with what they perceived as a minor issue. Plaintiffs, who have experience owning and training animals, note that the three prior bites did not break the skin and were far different from the aggressive nature of the later attack. Plaintiffs only learned about Brutus’ prior history when they were able to track down the prior owner by posting flyers and they submitted affidavits from the prior owner and her friend regarding their experiences with Brutus and their intent to have him euthanized when they took him to the Center. Under these circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on defendants’ misrepresentation and whether plaintiffs could have discovered Brutus’ dangerous nature with due diligence … . Lawrence v North Country Animal Control Ctr., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 01846, 3rd Dept 3-5-15

March 5, 2015

Animal Law

Criteria for Landlord’s Liability in a Dog Bite Case Explained

The Second Department determined that the property owner’s and manager’s motion for summary judgment in a case where a tenant’s dog bit the plaintiff should not have been granted. The court explained the analytical criteria:

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or a person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities” … . 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'” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … . “To 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” … . Velez v Andrejka, 2015 NY Slip Op 01793, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

March 4, 2015

Animal Law, Constitutional Law

Because the Habeas Corpus Petition Sought the Transfer of Kiko, A Chimpanzee, to Another Facility, Rather than Immediate Release, the Petition Must Be Denied, Regardless of Whether Kiko is Deemed a Person for Purposes of the Writ

The Fourth Department determined that a habeas corpus petition seeking the transfer of a chimpanzee, Kiko, to a facility with better conditions could not be granted, even if Kiko is deemed a person, because the petition did not seek Kiko’s immediate release:

Regardless of whether we agree with petitioner’s claim that Kiko is a person within the statutory and common-law definition of the writ, ” habeas corpus relief nonetheless is unavailable as [that] claim[], even if meritorious, would not entitle [Kiko] to immediate release’ ” … . It is well settled that a habeas corpus proceeding must be dismissed where the subject of the petition is not entitled to immediate release from custody … . Here, petitioner does not seek Kiko’s immediate release, nor does petitioner allege that Kiko’s continued detention is unlawful. Rather, petitioner seeks to have Kiko placed in a different facility that petitioner deems more appropriate. Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project Inc v Presti, 2015 NY Slip Op 00085, 4th Dept 1-2-15

January 2, 2015

Administrative Law, Animal Law

Rule Allowing Testing of Horses for Speed-Enhancing Drugs at Times Other than Just Before a Race Is a Valid Exercise of Racing & Wagering Board’s Authority

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined that the NYS Racing & Wagering Board did not exceed its authority when it promulgated rules allowing testing horses for the presence of speed-enhancing drugs at times other than immediately preceding a race:

While it is true that an administrative agency within the executive branch may not under the guise of rule-making engage in basic policy determinations reserved to the Legislature …, it is also true that the Legislature “has considerable latitude in determining the reasonable and practicable point of generality in adopting a standard for administrative action and, thus, [that] a reasonable amount of discretion may be delegated to . . . administrative officials” … . Here, the Legislature, in drafting Racing Law § 301 (2), was at pains to be explicit that that subsection was not to be construed as a limitation upon respondent's powers “to supervise generally all harness race meetings in this state at which pari-mutuel betting is conducted” and in that connection to “adopt rules and regulations . . . to carry into effect its [respondent's] purposes and provisions and to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof” (Racing Law § 301 [1]). Thus, not only does section 301 when read in its entirety make plain that the Legislature had no purpose of restricting respondent's general supervisory power over pari-mutuel harness race meetings, but it specifically authorizes regulatory action to prevent the circumvention or evasion of existing rules, necessarily including those whose object, sensibly understood, is “effectually” to prevent horses from racing under the influence of speed-enhancing doping agents. Out-of-competition drug testing, which, as noted, has as its raison d'etre the plugging of a loophole created in the pre-existing regulatory regimen by the introduction of doping agents capable of affecting competitive performance while eluding race day detection, is precisely the sort of measure contemplated by section 301 (1). As for section 902 (1), it too has no apparent limiting purpose its designation of a laboratory to perform equine drug testing at race meetings does not reasonably signify that such testing may be required by respondent only at race meetings. Matter of Ford v NYS Racing & Wagering Board, 2014 NY Slip Op 08870, CtApp 12-18-14

December 18, 2014

Animal Law, Civil Procedure

Complaint Based Upon Injury Caused by a Horse Which Had Gotten Loose After Defendant Rode the Horse to a Tavern Could Be Amended to Plead Negligence of the Horse’s Owner as Well as Strict Liability/Vicious Propensities in the Alternative

The Third Department determined plaintiff should be allowed to amend the complaint to include a negligence cause of action against the owner of a horse (Whiskey) which injured plaintiff. The two theories, negligence and strict liability, can be pled in the alternative. The defendant rode the horse to a tavern. While the defendant was in the tavern, the horse broke loose. Plaintiff helped get control of the horse and was injured when he was holding the reigns. The Third Department noted the 2013 Court of Appeals decision (Hastings) which held that a lawsuit based upon injury caused by a cow which had escaped the farm could be based upon the negligence of the owner in allowing the cow to escape, and not upon strict liability for the vicious propensities of the cow. Here, both the negligence of the owner and vicious propensity/strict liability issues are raised by the facts:

Defendant apparently disputes plaintiff’s claim that Whiskey’s conduct constituted a vicious propensity–as opposed to normal equine behavior–upon which strict liability can be based. If defendant were successful in establishing the absence of a vicious propensity, this would lead to the very outcome of which the Court of Appeals disapproved in Hastings defendant would be immunized for Whiskey’s behavior despite having been allegedly negligent in allowing the horse to roam from where it was being kept [FN3]. Inasmuch as we cannot predict how a jury will decide the question of whether Whiskey’s actions constituted a vicious propensity, we discern no reason why the two theories could not be pleaded in the alternative. Thus, if Whiskey’s actions were determined to constitute a vicious propensity, plaintiff would be limited to pursuing a claim based on strict liability … . If, however, a jury determined that Whiskey’s conduct did not constitute a vicious propensity, the jury could then decide whether defendant is liable based upon his alleged negligence in allowing the horse to stray from where it was kept… . Carey v Burton P Schwab, 2014 NY Slip Op 08096, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

November 20, 2014

Animal Law

Injury Caused by Dog’s Rambunctious Behavior Not Actionable

Plaintiff was injured when a dog, Heidi, jumped off a hammock causing plaintiff to fall from the hammock. In affirming the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, the Third Department explained the relevant strict liability criteria (no negligence cause of action lies for injuries caused by a dog):

There 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 … . A vicious propensity in this context need not involve any ferocious or aggressive behavior, but has instead been defined as “a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, so long as such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit” … . 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” … . Clark v Heaps, 2014 NY Slip Op 07239, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

October 23, 2014

Administrative Law, Animal Law, Appeals, Environmental Law

Permit Allowing the Killing of 62 Deer Properly Issued/Exception to the Mootness Doctrine Applied

The Second Department determined an Article 78 proceeding contesting a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) allowing Vassar College to kill 62 deer was properly dismissed. At the time of the appeal, the permit had already expired and the deer had been killed. The court determined the appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine because the issue is likely to reappear:

…[A]n exception to the mootness doctrine permits courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable … .

Here, although the subject deer cull has been completed and the challenged permit has expired, the appellants raise a substantial and novel issue as to whether the DEC is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities under SEQRA [State Environmental Quality Review Act] related to the issuance of nuisance deer permits. The issue is likely to recur and to evade appellate review, given the extremely short period of time during which such permits are valid … . * * *

Judicial review of an agency determination under SEQRA is limited to whether the agency procedures were lawful and “whether the agency identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look’ at them, and made a reasoned elaboration’ of the basis for its determination” … . “In a statutory scheme whose purpose is that the agency decision-makers focus attention on environmental concerns, it is not the role of the courts to weigh the desirability of any action or choose among alternatives, but to assure that the agency itself has satisfied SEQRA, procedurally and substantively” … . The agency decision should be annulled only if it is arbitrary and capricious, or unsupported by the evidence … . Further, an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation is entitled to deference unless it is unreasonable or irrational … .

Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the DEC’s issuance of a nuisance deer permit to Vassar pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law § 11-0521 complied with the requirements of SEQRA and its implementing regulations. The DEC’s use of a generic EIS, updated with a supplemental findings statement, to assess the impacts of the issuance of nuisance deer permits as a part of its wildlife game species management program was proper… . Matter of In Defense of Animals v Vassar College, 2014 NY Slip Op 07162, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

October 22, 2014

Animal Law, Civil Procedure

No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding Is an Adulterated Food

The Third Department determined petitioner [Stahlie] did not have standing to bring an action contending that foie gras produced by force feeding ducks or geese was an adulterated food which causes secondary amyloidosis:

Standing “requir[es] that the litigant have something truly at stake in a genuine controversy” … . Petitioners have “the burden of establishing both an injury in fact and that the asserted injury is within the zone of interests sought to be protected by the statute alleged to have been violated” … . The injury in fact element must be based on more than conjecture or speculation … . * * *

Here, the risk of exposure is minimal and the indication of harm uncertain. Although petitioners included expert opinion indicating a possible risk of secondary amyloidosis from foie gras for some individuals with certain medical conditions, they cite no situation of any person ever suffering secondary amyloidosis that was linked to foie gras. Stahlie does not contend that he has any of the underlying medical conditions that may be related to an increased risk of secondary amyloidosis. His exposure to foie gras is infrequent. There are no studies, statements or warnings by the regulating agency or other pertinent governmental entity regarding a relevant risk related to the occasional consumption of foie gras. Stahlie has, at best, occasional exposure to a product that has not yet been connected by any actual case to the purported risk of harm alleged by petitioners. We agree with Supreme Court that, even affording petitioners the benefit of every favorable inference, their allegations regarding an injury in fact to Stahlie are speculative and rest upon conjecture. Matter of Animal Defense Fund Inc v Aubertine, 2014 NY Slip Op 05395, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

July 17, 2014

Animal Law, Negligence

Plaintiff Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: Vicious Propensities of Defendants’ Dog

The Second Department determined plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact about the vicious propensities of a dog which was alleged to have bitten plaintiff:

“To recover upon a theory of strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog . . . knew or should have known of such propensities” … . “Evidence tending to prove that a dog has vicious propensities includes a prior attack, the dog’s tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth, the manner in which the dog was restrained, [the fact that the dog was kept as a guard dog,] and a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” … .

The defendants separately established their respective prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their respective motions by demonstrating, through their deposition testimony, as well as the plaintiff’s, that they “were not aware, nor should they have been aware, that this dog had ever bitten anyone or exhibited any aggressive behavior” … . Indeed, the defendants testified that they had no knowledge that the dog involved in this alleged attack on the plaintiff had ever growled at, chased, bitten, or attacked anyone prior to the subject incident … .

The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Henry v Higgins, 2014 NY Slip Op 03489, 2nd Dept 5-14-14

May 14, 2014

Animal Law, Zoning

Keeping Animals In Cages On the Same Lot as Petitioner’s Home, as Part of the Operation of a Business, Constituted a “Home Occupation” Requiring Approval by the Zoning Board

The Third Department determined the zoning board of appeals had properly ruled that petitioner was conducting a business inside his home without approval, a so-called “home occupation.” The fact that large animals were kept outside petitioner’s home in permanent cages was found to be within the scope of the relevant definition of an “accessory structure:”

Petitioner contends that the activities occur in the cages on his property, not in any building on the property or any offsite location. There is no evidence in this record to show that business activities are conducted “inside the residence” or “at off-site locations,” so such activities must be conducted in “a legally constructed accessory building” to fall within the ordinance (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [42]). An “[a]ccessory [s]tructure” is defined as a building “which is located on the same lot” as, and “the use of which is incidental to that of,” a one- or two-family dwelling (Zoning Law[2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 202 [A] [1]). “Building” is defined as a one- or two-family dwelling or portion thereof “intended to be used for human habitation” but also “shall include accessory structures thereto” (Zoning Law [2008] of theTown of Mayfield § 202 [A] [10]). While cages would not generally be considered buildings, the Zoning Law contains a section on “[w]ord [u]sage” stating that “[t]he word ‘building’ includes the word ‘structure'” (Zoning Law [2008] of the Town of Mayfield § 201). That provision clarifies any ambiguity concerning the definitions of the relevant terms here, as a cage that is built into the ground – like these cages apparently are – can be considered a structure, and the cages are on the same lot as and incidental to the use of petitioner’s residence … .The code enforcement officer did not assert that the cages were illegally constructed. Thus, as petitioner is carrying on business activities in legally constructed accessory structures, he is operating a home occupation. Matter of Salton v Town of Mayfield Zoning Board of Appeals, 516523, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

April 3, 2014