And this will land you in Court

And This Will Land You in Court: Understanding Dog Bite Liability in New York

Dog ownership comes with both joy and legal responsibility. For pet owners throughout Long Island and New York City, understanding when your beloved companion’s behavior might lead to serious legal consequences is crucial for protecting both your family and your financial future. The case of Grillo v Williamsh, 2010 NY Slip Op 02290 (4th Dept. 2010), provides valuable insights into how New York courts analyze dog bite liability and what constitutes evidence of a dog’s “vicious propensities” under state law.

The Fundamentals of New York Dog Bite Law

The Court denied a motion for summary judgment in a strict-liability dog-bite case. I dislike the result, but found the court’s recitation of the facts intriguing:

Even in the absence of evidence of a prior bite, however, a triable issue of fact may be raised with respect to defendants’ knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities by evidence of behavior that “reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm” (Collier, 1 NY3d at 447). “Such behaviors can include the animal being territorial, aggressively barking when her area invaded, attacking another animal, growling and biting at another dog” and jumping on individuals (Morse v Colombo, 8 AD3d 808, 809; see Calabro v Bennett, 291 AD2d 616; Lagoda v Dorr, 28 AD2d 208, 209). Here, defendants submitted evidence that they knew their dog was territorial inasmuch as the dog had aggressively barked and growled at strangers in their presence. Defendants also submitted evidence that they were aware that the dog was “moody” and “protective” of the women in the household and that the dog tended to bark or growl if a man was too close to one of the women.

Two questions: 1) Isn’t this why people have dogs; and 2) Do you know anybody like this?

The Reality of Dog Ownership and Legal Liability

When Protective Instincts Become Legal Problems

The somewhat humorous observation at the end of the Grillo case touches on a fundamental tension in dog bite law: many of the behaviors that make dogs excellent companions and protectors – being territorial, protective of family members, and alert to strangers – are the same behaviors that can establish legal liability when someone gets hurt.

For dog owners in Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx, this creates a challenging legal landscape. The very traits that many people seek in a dog – loyalty, protectiveness, and territorial instincts – can become evidence of “vicious propensities” if those behaviors ever result in someone being bitten or attacked.

Contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595 if you’ve been injured by someone else’s dog or are facing liability as a dog owner, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595 for experienced representation. Our team understands the unique challenges of dog bite cases and provides comprehensive legal services to clients throughout Long Island and New York City.

Related Articles

• Understanding CPLR 3212(a): Critical Timing Rules for Summary Judgment Motions in New York
• The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm
• Reasonable excuse satisfied despite claim of lack of personal jurisdiction
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2010 post, New York’s dog bite liability standards and court interpretations of “vicious propensities” may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions and statutory amendments. Additionally, local municipal ordinances regarding dangerous dog classifications and owner responsibilities have been subject to updates across New York jurisdictions. Practitioners should verify current case law precedents and any legislative changes that may have affected the liability standards and evidentiary requirements discussed in the original Grillo analysis.