New York’s dog-bite law is unusual. Knowing the framework determines what you can recover and from whom.
Under Petrone v. Fernandez and the line of cases that follows, New York applies a two-tier framework. Medical and veterinary costs: under NY Agriculture & Markets Law §§121 and 123, the owner is responsible for medical and veterinary costs of a bite victim regardless of the owner’s prior knowledge of dangerous tendencies. Pain-and-suffering and other tort damages: the common-law “one-bite” rule requires proof that the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities.
Bite wounds (puncture, laceration, crush). Facial injuries — particularly serious in children. Permanent scarring. Nerve damage. Infection risk (rabies prophylaxis, bacterial infection). Psychological injury (PTSD, fear of dogs, anxiety). Each requires specific medical documentation.
The Petrone v. Fernandez standard requires proof of vicious propensities known to the owner. Investigation: prior bite reports to NYC Department of Health, neighbor witness statements, prior animal-control incidents at the property, the dog’s behavior in the building/neighborhood, the owner’s training and containment practices. Many dogs have a history that emerges only when investigated.
Homeowner’s and renter’s liability policies typically include dog-bite coverage, often up to $100,000-$300,000 per incident. Some insurers exclude certain breeds; some exclude all dogs. The carrier’s coverage decision is the first investigative step in the case.
Yes. Immigration status does not bar a Labor Law claim in NY. Communications with us are protected by attorney-client privilege.
In most cases, yes. Workers’ comp covers your employer. The Labor Law claim is against third parties — property owner, GC, subcontractor. The two run in parallel.
Three years from the accident under CPLR §214. If a public entity is involved (NYCHA, a city project), a 90-day Notice of Claim is required under GML §50-e.
Only for medical and veterinary costs under Ag & Mkts Law §§121 and 123. For pain-and-suffering and other tort damages, the common-law “one-bite” rule per Petrone v. Fernandez requires proof of knowledge of vicious propensities.
A documented prior bite is one of the strongest forms of evidence of “vicious propensities known to the owner.”
Under the Petrone framework, the question is whether the owner knew the dog had vicious propensities, not the dog’s subjective intent.
Three years from the date of the bite for personal injury (CPLR §214).
Typically yes. Verifying the policy and any breed exclusions is the first investigative step.
Same-day callback. English and Spanish. Available 24/7.
