A dog bite can leave you facing medical bills, time away from work, and questions about whether the owner can be held responsible. In April 2025, New York’s highest court expanded the options available to injured people by allowing negligence claims against domestic animal owners alongside the existing strict liability framework.
The change means a dog’s lack of a documented bite history does not automatically prevent a claim. Depending on the circumstances, an injured person may seek compensation by showing that the owner knew or should have known about the dog’s dangerous tendencies, failed to use reasonable care, or both.
New York City’s Health Department reported 3,814 dog bites to city residents in 2024—approximately 45 per 100,000 residents and the highest reported count during 2015–2024. Those figures concern city residents, rather than all of New York State, but they show how frequently these injuries occur.
Key Takeaways: How Did New York’s Dog Bite Law Change in 2025?
- On April 17, 2025, the New York Court of Appeals allowed ordinary negligence claims against domestic animal owners in Flanders v. Goodfellow.
- Injured people may pursue strict liability, negligence, or both when the facts support those claims.
- Strict liability still requires proof that the owner knew or should have known about the animal’s vicious propensities.
- Negligence focuses on whether the owner failed to use reasonable care and caused the injury.
- The ruling can affect pending cases involving injuries that happened before the decision.
What Changed in New York Dog Bite Law in 2025?
Before Flanders, ordinary negligence claims against dog owners were generally barred under Bard v. Jahnke. Most dog bite claims against owners therefore depended on proving that the owner knew or should have known about the dog’s vicious propensities.
On April 17, 2025, the Court of Appeals changed that rule in Flanders v. Goodfellow, allowing negligence as an additional basis for recovery.
Flanders involved a postal carrier bitten while delivering a package. The court reinstated her strict liability claim because the evidence raised a factual dispute about the owners’ knowledge of the dog’s dangerous behavior. It also reinstated her negligence claim, allowing the lower court to consider that claim on its merits.
The decision did not establish that the owners were negligent or award compensation. It allowed the claims to proceed for further consideration.
This change came through a court decision, rather than new legislation. Under the resulting framework, a New York dog bite claim may involve:
| Theory | Main question |
|---|---|
| Strict liability | Did the owner know or have reason to know about the dog’s vicious propensities? |
| Negligence | Did the owner fail to use reasonable care and cause the injury? |
| Both | Does the evidence independently support each theory? |
How Did the Change Affect the “One-Bite Rule”?
The phrase “one-bite rule” has always oversimplified New York dog bite law. An injured person does not necessarily need evidence of a previous bite to establish strict liability.
Evidence of vicious propensities may include:
- Previous attacks
- Growling, snapping, or baring teeth in threatening circumstances
- Attempts to attack people or other animals
- The way the dog was restrained
- Evidence that the dog was kept as a guard dog
- Other behavior showing a tendency to endanger people or property
These facts must be evaluated in context. Ordinary barking, running around, or other normal canine behavior does not automatically establish a vicious propensity.
In Slotnick v. Chaikin, the court upheld dismissal because the plaintiff did not raise a factual dispute about the owner’s knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities. The court also explained that the nature and severity of that attack did not demonstrate the owner’s prior knowledge.
Slotnick addressed the strict liability framework; it did not analyze a negligence claim. The distinction matters because failure to establish strict liability does not necessarily resolve a separately supported negligence claim.
What Must an Injured Person Prove in a New York Dog Bite Claim?
The required proof depends on the theory pursued. A dog bite injury lawyer can evaluate whether the evidence supports one or both approaches.
For common-law strict liability, the injured person generally must establish that:
- The dog had vicious propensities.
- The owner knew or should have known about those propensities.
- Those propensities caused the injury.
For negligence, the injured person must establish that:
- The owner owed a duty of reasonable care.
- The owner failed to exercise that care.
- The failure caused the injury.
- The injured person suffered compensable damages.
A bite alone does not establish negligence. Relevant evidence may concern the dog’s restraint, the condition of a fence or enclosure, the owner’s supervision, foreseeable risks, and precautions that could reasonably have prevented the incident.
In Miller v. Wamp, a dog broke a restraint, attacked another dog, and injured the plaintiff when he tried to separate them. The court found factual disputes concerning vicious propensities and owner knowledge. It also recognized that the negligence claim remained viable after Flanders. That allowed the claims to proceed; it did not establish liability.
Useful evidence may include:
- Medical records and photographs of injuries
- Photographs or video of the dog, restraint, and property
- Witness statements
- Animal-control records
- Previous complaints or incident reports
- Relevant veterinary or training records
Can Comparative Negligence or Provocation Affect a Dog Bite Claim?
An owner may argue that the injured person’s conduct contributed to the injury. Under New York’s general comparative-fault statute, culpable conduct generally reduces damages in proportion to the claimant’s share of fault rather than automatically preventing recovery.
Potential arguments may concern whether the injured person ignored a warning, approached the dog in a threatening way, or entered an area without permission. None of these facts automatically establishes fault. The circumstances and evidence matter.
If the owner establishes that the injured person’s culpable conduct contributed to the injury, damages may be reduced accordingly.
Provocation concerns whether a person’s actions prompted the dog’s reaction. It can affect the assessment of fault, causation, and whether liability has been established. A dog’s reaction does not, by itself, prove that the injured person provoked it.
Does the New Rule Apply to Bites That Happened Before April 2025?
The negligence framework can apply to pending cases involving earlier injuries. The incident date alone does not determine whether a negligence claim is available.
In LaRocca v. Lauer, the appellate court applied Flanders to a claim arising from a 2019 bite. Although it upheld dismissal of the strict liability claim, it returned the negligence claim to the lower court for consideration on its merits.
In Smith v. State of New York, the trial had finished, but the court had not issued its decision when Flanders was decided. The court applied the new negligence rule.
These decisions show that the change can affect pending litigation. They do not mean that finally resolved cases automatically reopen or that expired filing deadlines restart. The availability of a claim still depends on its procedural status and the applicable deadlines.
Compensation After a Dog Bite or Animal Attack
Depending on the injuries and evidence, recoverable damages may include:
- Medical expenses
- Supported future treatment costs
- Lost income
- Reduced earning capacity
- Physical pain and suffering
- Scarring or disfigurement
- Emotional or psychological harm associated with the injury
Medical records, employment documentation, photographs, and other evidence help establish these losses. Expert testimony may be needed to support certain claims involving future treatment or long-term limitations.
The value of an individual dog bite claim depends on the injury, its effects, the evidence of liability, and other case-specific circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does homeowners’ or renters’ insurance cover a dog bite claim in New York?
Liability insurance may cover a dog bite claim, depending on the policy and circumstances. New York Insurance Law § 3421 prohibits insurers from excluding, restricting, or reducing coverage under covered homeowners policies solely because of a dog’s breed or breed mix.
The law permits certain underwriting actions based on a statutory dangerous-dog designation. Coverage limits and other applicable policy terms still need to be reviewed.
Can I bring a claim if a neighbor’s or stranger’s dog bit me?
Potentially. A personal relationship with the owner is not required. Whether a claim succeeds depends on the evidence supporting strict liability, negligence, or another applicable basis for recovery.
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in New York?
Most dog bite personal injury lawsuits against a private owner must be filed within three years of the injury under CPLR § 214(5).
Exceptions may apply, including certain claims involving children. Government defendants may be subject to different deadlines and additional filing requirements. Pursuing negligence instead of common-law strict liability does not ordinarily create a different deadline.
Can a landlord be held responsible for a tenant’s dog?
Potentially. Responsibility depends on the landlord’s control over the property, notice of the danger, and the circumstances surrounding the attack. Simply owning the building does not automatically establish liability.
Courts are also considering negligence claims against landlords after Flanders. In Nicolosi v. Contreras, a July 2026 trial-court decision, the court considered ordinary premises liability principles but dismissed the claim because the evidence did not establish the landlord’s notice of a dangerous condition. The appellate standards for these claims continue to develop.
Does the dog’s breed establish that it had vicious propensities?
Breed alone does not establish a vicious propensity. For strict liability, the focus remains on the particular dog’s behavior and what the owner knew or should have known. Relevant evidence about the owner’s conduct must also be evaluated separately when negligence is alleged.
How Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law Can Help After a Dog Bite
A New York dog bite claim may require examining both the animal’s history and the owner’s actions. Knowledge of dangerous behavior remains central to common-law strict liability, while negligence provides another potential route when a failure to use reasonable care caused the injury.
Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, can review the circumstances of the attack, identify relevant evidence, and explain the claims and deadlines that may apply. Whether the bite happened recently or a claim is already underway, understanding your options can help you decide how to move forward.