Dog bites and animal attacks

What changed, and why it matters

From 2006 until April 2025, New York was an outlier. Under Bard v Jahnke, a person hurt by a domestic animal could recover on one theory only: strict liability, and only by proving the owner knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities. If you could not prove that, you lost, no matter how carelessly the owner had behaved.

On April 17, 2025, in Flanders v Goodfellow, the Court of Appeals overruled that part of Bard. The court held the rule was in tension with ordinary tort principles, had proven unworkable, and was in some circumstances unfair, asking, in effect, why someone negligent with a dog should be treated more gently than someone negligent with a car.

So there are now two routes, and an injured person can use either or both:

• Strict liability, the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities. Where that is established, liability follows.
• Ordinary negligence, the owner failed to exercise reasonable care in the circumstances. This does not require proving anything about what the owner knew of the dog’s temperament.

That second route is genuinely new, and a great deal of what is published about New York dog bite law, including on law firm websites, still describes the world before it existed.

"One bite" is the wrong way to think about it

People assume every dog gets one free bite. That is not the test, and it never quite was. What matters is what the owner knew or should have known, and the courts have been explicit that a triable issue can be raised even without any previous bite, on evidence the dog had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth.

A vicious propensity means any behavior reflecting a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk. Lunging. Snarling. Straining at a leash. Throwing itself repeatedly at a window when somebody comes up the path.

"We had no idea" is not the end of the conversation

The knowledge required can be constructive, what the owner should have known, not only what they admit knowing. Flanders shows how far that reaches. The owners said they had never seen the dog growl or bare its teeth and that nobody had complained. Two mail carriers swore the dog routinely slammed into the window, snarling and trying to bite through the glass, loudly enough that anyone home would have known.

The Court held that was enough to require a trial. The owners’ account raised a question of credibility, not a reason to end the case.

If you were bitten on the job

The person injured in Flanders was a postal carrier bitten while handing over a package at a front door. Delivery drivers, mail carriers, meter readers and home health aides are among the most frequently bitten people, and they have something most bite victims do not: colleagues who cover the same route and have encountered the same dog. That is exactly the evidence that decided Flanders.

If you were working when it happened, a workers compensation claim and a claim against the dog’s owner can run at the same time, the owner is not your employer, so the exclusive remedy rule does not protect them.

What helps

Photographs of the injury as it heals, not only on day one. The name and address of the owner, and of the dog. Anyone who saw it. A report to the local health department, required for the rabies protocol, and it creates a dated record. And if you cover a route, whether anyone else has had trouble at that address.

Deadline

Three years from the date of the bite under CPLR § 214(5). If a municipality is somehow involved, the ninety-day notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e can apply and is far shorter.

Questions people ask

Does the owner have to know the dog was dangerous?

For a strict liability claim, yes. You have to show the owner knew or should have known of the dog’s vicious propensities. But since April 2025 that is no longer the only route. You can also bring an ordinary negligence claim, which does not depend on proving what the owner knew about the dog.

What changed in 2025?

In Flanders v Goodfellow the Court of Appeals overruled a 2006 decision that had barred negligence claims for harm caused by domestic animals. New York now has two routes: strict liability for known vicious propensities, and ordinary negligence. A person can bring both in the same case.

Is New York a "one bite" state?

That shorthand is misleading. A first bite can still support a claim, the courts have said a triable issue can be raised even without a prior bite, by evidence the dog had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth. What matters is what the owner knew or should have known, not a bite count.

What counts as a vicious propensity?

Any behavior reflecting a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm. It does not require a previous attack. Lunging, snarling, snapping, straining at a leash, or repeatedly throwing itself at a window when someone approaches can all be evidence of it.

The owner says they never saw the dog act that way. Does that end it?

Not necessarily. The test includes constructive knowledge, what the owner should have known. In Flanders itself, affidavits from mail carriers describing the dog slamming into windows were enough to require a trial, even though the owners said they were unaware of it.

I was bitten making a delivery. Does that matter?

It is the exact situation the 2025 case arose from, the injured person was a postal carrier bitten at a front door. Delivery drivers, mail carriers and meter readers are among the most commonly bitten people, and repeated encounters at the same address are often documented.

How long do I have to bring a claim?

Three years from the date of the bite under CPLR 214(5). Separately, and much sooner, dog bites should be reported to the local health department, both because of the rabies protocol and because that report becomes an early, dated record of what happened.

Related

Sources

Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 (Ct App, April 17, 2025) ·CPLR § 214 ·General Municipal Law § 50-e
Read from the opinion itself and verified August 23, 2026. This page describes how New York law treats these claims. It is not advice about your own case, and whether either route is available depends on facts this page cannot know.