Queens Dog Bite Lawyer

Who is responsible when a dog bites someone in New York

There are now two separate ways to hold a dog owner responsible. The first is strict liability: an owner who knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities is liable for the harm those propensities cause, without any need to prove carelessness. The second is ordinary negligence: an owner who failed to use reasonable care to control the dog can be liable even if the dog had no history at all.

You do not have to choose one. The Court of Appeals has said an injured person may bring both claims together.

What changed in 2025, in plain language

For almost twenty years, the rule came from Bard v Jahnke (2006), a case about a breeding bull on a dairy farm. Bard held that when a domestic animal causes harm, the owner’s liability depends only on proof that the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities. If the owner could say the dog had never shown aggression, many dog bite cases ended before trial.

On April 17, 2025, New York’s highest court decided Flanders v Goodfellow. The case involved a letter carrier bitten on the shoulder by a roughly 70-pound dog that slipped past its owner through an open front door. The Court, without dissent, stated: “we overrule Bard to the extent that it bars negligence liability for harm caused by domestic animals.”

The Court explained that a person hurt by an animal “has a choice”: pursue strict liability if the owner knew or should have known of vicious propensities, or “rely on rules of ordinary negligence and seek to prove that the defendant failed to exercise due care.” The strict liability rule was left in place. What changed is that a clean history no longer ends the case on its own. The question becomes what a reasonable owner should have done, such as closing the door or holding the leash.

Two cautions. First, Flanders sent the negligence claim back to the trial court, so the courts are still working out what evidence is enough in dog cases. Second, many websites and adjusters still describe the pre-2025 rule. If someone told you “New York is a one-bite state,” get a second opinion.

Proving the owner knew: vicious propensities

In Collier v Zambito (2004), the Court of Appeals said knowledge of vicious propensities “may of course be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice.” A prior bite is not required. A triable question can be raised “even in the absence of proof that the dog had actually bitten someone” by evidence that the dog “had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth.”

The Court also said it is “potentially relevant” whether the owner chose to restrain the dog, and how. But it added that the mere fact that a dog was kept enclosed or chained, or barked at people, is not enough by itself. Collier also stated plainly that its rule “does not entitle dog owners to an automatic ‘one free bite.'” In Flanders, sworn statements from two other letter carriers, describing the dog snarling and slamming into the window glass on their deliveries, were enough to put the owners’ knowledge before a jury.

When the dog has been declared dangerous

New York’s Agriculture and Markets Law section 123 sets up a court process for declaring a dog dangerous. A witness to an attack or threatened attack, or an adult acting for a child, may complain to a dog control officer or police officer, or file a sworn complaint with a judge. The judge must hold a hearing within five days, on at least two days’ written notice to the owner, and the complaining party must prove the dog is dangerous by clear and convincing evidence. The statute sets no deadline for filing that complaint.

Section 123(10) provides that the owner or lawful custodian of a dangerous dog “shall… be strictly liable for medical costs resulting from injury caused by such dog.” That liability does not apply where the dog’s conduct was justified, for example where the injured person was tormenting or abusing the dog. Section 123(12) states that these provisions are “in addition to” any common-law claim, so they do not replace a negligence or vicious propensity claim for pain, scarring and lost wages.

Landlords, tenants and NYCHA

In Strunk v Zoltanski (1984), the Court of Appeals addressed claims against the building owner. The general rule it described is that where a tenant gets the dog after the lease begins, the injured person must show the landlord knew of the dog’s vicious propensities and had control of the premises or some other ability to remove or confine the animal. The Court held that a landlord who knew, before leasing, that the tenant would keep a vicious dog there, and took no reasonable precautions, may be liable.

If the landlord is the New York City Housing Authority, extra rules apply. Under Public Housing Law section 157, an action against a housing authority must be started within one year and ninety days, and a notice of claim must first be served under General Municipal Law section 50-e, which generally requires service within ninety days after the claim arises.

Where dog bite claims go wrong

Relying on the old “one-bite” answer

The most common mistake is treating the case as dead because the dog had no prior bites. After Flanders, the owner’s carelessness on the day of the bite can support a claim on its own, and even under the older rule a prior bite was never required.

No evidence of what the owner knew

The neighbor who saw it lunge at children and the letter carrier who stopped approaching the door are the witnesses who win strict liability claims, and they are hardest to find later.

Suing the landlord who had no notice

A landlord who did not know of the dog’s vicious propensities, or had no ability to control or remove it, is likely to be dismissed, and the time spent on that fight is time the claim against the dog’s owner needed.

The bite that was never reported

The Health Department states that Health Code section 11.03 requires animal bites to be reported within 24 hours. An unreported bite leaves no official record of the dog’s behavior.

Assuming a child’s claim has expired

For a child, the three years generally run from the child’s 18th birthday. See the example below.

Missing the ninety-day notice against a public entity

When a claim involves NYCHA or another public body, the ninety-day notice of claim is often the first deadline, not the three-year one. A court may allow late notice, but that is up to the court, which weighs whether the entity learned the essential facts in time.

Treating workers’ compensation as the only remedy

Compensation is the only remedy against the employer, not against the dog’s owner.

Worked example: a child bitten at age 7

A girl born on March 3, 2019 is bitten by a neighbor’s dog in Ozone Park on June 14, 2026, when she is seven. An adult bitten that day would ordinarily have three years under CPLR 214(5), until June 14, 2029.

Under CPLR 208, when the injured person is under 18 at the time of the injury, the three-year period is extended to three years after the disability of infancy ends. She turns 18 on March 3, 2037, so her own claim can be started until March 3, 2040. CPLR 208’s ten-year outer limit does not apply to infancy outside of medical, dental or podiatric malpractice.

Waiting that long is rarely wise: witnesses move and the dog’s history is forgotten.

Bitten while working: letter carriers, delivery workers and home health aides

Under Workers’ Compensation Law section 11, compensation is the employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer. Section 29 preserves the right to sue someone “not in the same employ” whose negligence or wrong caused the injury, and a dog owner is usually in that position. The compensation carrier will have a lien on the recovery, and section 29 has its own timing rules that can shift control of the claim to the carrier, so speak with a lawyer early.

Letter carriers are federal employees covered by federal compensation law rather than New York’s, but federal law also recognizes claims against a third party whose conduct caused the injury. Flanders itself was brought by a letter carrier.

If you were partly at fault

New York uses pure comparative negligence. Under CPLR 1411(a), the injured person’s own fault “shall not bar recovery”; it reduces the award in proportion. The defendant must plead and prove that fault under CPLR 1412.

A 2026 amendment added CPLR 1411(b), which bars recovery where the claimant’s fault is greater than the defendants’ fault, but only “in any action to recover damages for personal injury subject to article fifty-one of the insurance law.” Article 51 is New York’s no-fault motor vehicle law. An ordinary dog bite claim is not a motor vehicle case, so section 1411(a) still governs it.

What to do after a dog bite

1. Get medical care the same day. Bite wounds can become infected, and a doctor needs to decide whether rabies treatment is required. For a child’s facial wound, ask whether a pediatric or plastic surgery consult is appropriate.
2. Report the bite to 311 or the Health Department. This creates an official record, and the Health Department uses the report to check whether the dog is healthy ten days after the bite.
3. Get the owner’s name and address, and the address where the dog is kept if it is different.
4. Ask for the dog’s rabies vaccination record. Your doctor needs it, and it identifies the owner.
5. Photograph the wound over time, on the first day, during healing and after scarring sets in. Also photograph the scene, such as a broken gate or open door.
6. Get names and phone numbers of witnesses, including anyone who knows how the dog behaved before.
7. Do not sign anything from the owner’s insurer, and do not give a recorded statement, before you have spoken with a lawyer.

Frequently asked questions

Is New York still a “one-bite” state?

No. Even before 2025, owners did not get an automatic free bite, and since Flanders v Goodfellow an owner can also be liable in ordinary negligence.

How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit?

For an adult, generally three years from the bite under CPLR 214(5). For a child, generally until three years after the child turns 18. Claims involving NYCHA or another public entity have a ninety-day notice requirement and a shorter lawsuit deadline.

Does the dog have to be declared dangerous before I can sue?

No. A dangerous dog finding under Agriculture and Markets Law section 123 creates strict liability for medical costs, but the statute keeps all common-law claims in place.

The dog was on a leash. Do I still have a claim?

Possibly. A leash held loosely, or by someone who could not control the dog, can be evidence of negligence.

My child was petting the dog when it bit. Does that end the case?

Not by itself. Under CPLR 1411(a), any fault assigned to the injured person reduces the recovery rather than barring it, and the owner has the burden of proving it. A dangerous dog finding is not made where a dog was responding to someone tormenting or abusing it, but ordinary petting is not the same thing.

Can I sue my friend or relative whose dog bit me?

Yes. Often, the claim is paid by the owner’s homeowner’s or renter’s liability policy, not out of the owner’s pocket. Some policies exclude certain breeds or dogs with a prior bite, so the policy should be obtained early.

Talk to a Queens dog bite lawyer

Ribowsky Law represents people hurt by dogs throughout Queens and New York City from our office at 109-12 Jamaica Avenue in Richmond Hill. In 2025, the Health Department’s dog bite data recorded 1,192 reported bites in Queens out of 5,049 bite records for the year. There is no attorney’s fee unless we recover money for you.