More Than Just the “One-Bite Rule” New York’s New Dog Liability Law for 2025

Over the last thirty-five years of practicing personal injury law on Long Island, I have handled many dog bite and dog related injury cases. These cases have always been of special interest to me as an avid dog lover, owner of two amazing “rescue” dogs and as a decade long volunteer and Pro-bono counsel for Last Chance Animal Rescue
(www.lcarescue.org).

However, New York’s “Dog Bite” law has always made it very difficult for people bitten or injured by a dog to “win” a case against the owner of the dog that caused their injury.

Before this year, a person injured in New York by someone else’s dog could only file a lawsuit based upon strict liability and not based upon negligence. Under a strict liability cause of action, the plaintiff (injured party) was required to prove that the involved dog possessed a vicious propensity, and that the dog owner was aware of it or should have been aware of it before the date of the injury.

A vicious propensity has been held to be a tendency to act in a way that may endanger the safety of a person. This would of course involve biting a person, but it could also include jumping on someone or other behavior that causes injury. To prove that the dog owner was aware of this propensity an injured person would have to prove that the dog engaged in the same or similar type of behavior before the injury date in the presence of the owner.

This is where the publicly used term “One -bite rule” comes from. Of course, if the injured person could prove that the dog actually bit someone else before the day they were bitten, this propensity and the dog owner’s knowledge of it could easily be proven. However, often in dog bite cases there is no proof of a prior bite (a county health department search is the best place to obtain proof of a prior bite, as medical providers have a duty to notify their county health department if they provide treatment for a dog bite).

Without proof of a prior bite it was very difficult to win these cases. Attorneys would try to find alternative proof of a vicious propensity by questioning neighbors, mail carriers, etc. to see if they had seen the dog act aggressively before the date of injury. Proof that the dog barked aggressively, growled, snarled, bared its teeth or snapped could create a question of fact so that the case would not be dismissed by a judge. This would allow the issue of whether the dog had a vicious propensity and the dog owner’s awareness of it to be decided by a jury.

There are also cases where a person is injured due to other behavior of a dog and not a bite. I have handled many cases where my clients were caused to fall or were knocked down by an off-leash dog. These cases were always extremely difficult to win because proof that the dog had been off leash before and caused injury to someone is harder to prove. Even if you were able to obtain evidence that the dog had been off leash before, that was insufficient because that alone was not proof of viciousness or a behavior that puts others at risk of harm.

Under New York’s law up until now, a person injured by a dog was not permitted to recover against the dog owner for their negligence. Negligence is basically the absence of care, a failure to act in a way that a reasonable person (dog owner) would act. So, previously if a dog owner let their dog run unleashed and they knocked someone down or caused a bicyclist to crash, etc., there would be no viable case against the dog owner for acting in a negligent manner.

However, on April 17, 2025, the State of New York Court of Appeals (Our highest Court) changed the law and New York joined almost every other state in allowing recovery for injuries against the owner of a dog based upon proof of negligence and not only strict liability.

The court in the case of Flanders -v- Goodfellow stated that the previous case law in New York was an “obstacle in the path of justice”. So now a person injured by the dog of another can prevail if they can prove the dog possessed a vicious propensity and the owner was aware of it, OR they can rely on ordinary negligence and prove that the dog owner failed to exercise due care under the circumstances.

To me as an attorney and a responsible dog owner, this new law is much more fair to those injured by someone else’s dog. As the court in Flanders stated, “Tort law seeks to incentivize us to be mindful of the risk that our behavior might harm others by imposing a duty to act with due care.”

So, my advice to my fellow dog lovers in light of this new law is simply to act reasonably and with due care when handling your dog. Be aware of how your dog tends to act in general and when interacting with people and other dogs. No one wants to be injured by your dog, and you do not want to have a claim against your homeowner’s insurance, or a process server deliver lawsuit papers to your front door.

If you ever have any questions about any type of a dog related injury, you can always contact me at 631-495-9435 or at mark@northshoreinjurylawyer.com

Life Tip from Dogs

We don’t overthink. We don’t hold grudges.
We live for the moment the leash comes out
or the snack bag crinkles. Be present. Be loyal.
Celebrate the small stuff – like snacks, sunshine,
or someone just being there. And it’s okay to
mess up. Just shake it off, and try again
like it’s the first time.

Because the point isn’t perfection
-it’s enjoying the journey.