A facial injury is valued on how it looks after healing finishes, not on the emergency-room note. Two legal definitions in New York attach consequences to disfigurement specifically, and both are satisfied by findings a physician writes in a chart rather than by description after the fact.
Call (646) 914-9310No obligation · Written for New York · New York County
Six boxes, about thirty seconds. You pick when to be called back, and that is when the phone rings.
Or call (646) 914-9310New York City Health Code 161.02 defines severe injury as physical injury inflicted by a dog causing at least a broken bone or a disfiguring laceration requiring either multiple stitches or cosmetic surgery, and under 161.07(f) a dog that caused severe injury stays in a shelter until an administrative law judge reports it is not dangerous. Agriculture and Markets Law 108(29) separately defines serious physical injury to include injury causing serious or protracted disfigurement. That definition matters because section 123 raises the civil penalty ceiling from four hundred dollars to fifteen hundred where the injury is serious, and makes a repeat incident involving an already-adjudicated dangerous dog a misdemeanor.
A useful operative and discharge record describes the anatomic location, the length and depth of the laceration, whether tissue was lost, the closure method and suture material, whether a specialist performed the repair, and any plan for revision. The word "disfiguring" is a legal threshold, so a chart that documents the elements supporting it is more valuable than one that uses the word without them. Photographs belong in the file from the first day: before cleaning, after closure, at suture removal and at intervals afterward, in ordinary indoor light, with the original image files retained rather than versions cropped or filtered for a phone.
Scar appearance continues to change well past the point at which the wound has closed, and revision surgery is normally planned after that process settles rather than during it. That sequencing conflicts with the pace of an insurance discussion, because an early offer prices what the file shows on the day it is made. Under CPLR 3043(a) a defendant may demand a statement of injuries and whether they are claimed to be permanent, so a permanency opinion eventually has to exist in writing. Settling before a treating specialist can give one converts an open question into a closed number.
Flanders v Goodfellow, decided April 17, 2025, involved a postal carrier bitten on December 8, 2018 whose injury was described as a snap tear in a shoulder muscle requiring multiple surgeries and leaving permanent scarring. The decision matters here for two reasons. It confirms that permanent scarring from a dog attack is litigated as a serious injury, and it opened a second route to liability by overruling Bard v Jahnke to the extent that decision barred a common-law negligence claim for harm caused by a domestic animal. A claim can now be pleaded on propensity knowledge, on negligence, or on both.
Agriculture and Markets Law 123(10) imposes strict liability for medical costs on the owner or lawful custodian of a dangerous dog. It stops there. Disfigurement, the emotional consequences of a visible scar, lost income and future revision surgery are not covered by that subdivision, and subdivision 12 makes clear that section 123 does not limit other claims. That division explains why an opening offer that tracks the hospital charges can look reasonable and still be pricing only a fraction of the claim, particularly where the surgical plan has not yet been written.
Two procedural rules shape what a disfigurement award is finally worth. CPLR 4545 permits a post-verdict reduction of past or future economic loss shown to be replaced from a collateral source, less premiums paid for the two years before accrual and the projected future premium cost, with voluntary charitable contributions excluded. CPLR 5041 governs how a judgment containing substantial future damages is structured, with the court entering judgment for past damages and future damages up to the statutory threshold in a lump sum and the remainder paid periodically. Both operate on economic loss, so the non-economic component of a facial claim has to be documented on its own terms.
None of the medical work substitutes for proof about the dog. The propensity showing described in Collier v Zambito reaches any tendency to act in a way that might endanger others, and Agro v Olivieri holds that ordinary canine behavior such as barking at passersby or pulling on a leash will not establish it. So the same file that tracks surgical planning also needs the dated accounts of earlier lunging, the building complaint history, and any Health Department bite record, which under Health Code 161.02 is prima facie evidence that a dog is dangerous.
Facial Scarring Dog Bite Claims in New York. Call (646) 914-9310 and a New York lawyer reviews the claim and the deadline that applies. Nothing is signed on that call.
Call (646) 914-9310NYC Health requires any type of animal bite to be reported within 24 hours of the event, and the city coordinates follow-up with the animal, owner and person bitten to assess rabies risk.
Why it matters: The Health Department report is a time-stamped public-health record that can help identify the dog and owner. It should be made promptly alongside medical care, while the separate evidence of notice, prior behavior and property control is preserved.
Sources: nyc.gov · portal.311.nyc.gov
NYC Health reported 3,814 dog bites to city residents in 2024, the highest count of the 2015-2024 period, 51% above the 2,525 reported in 2020 and 28% above the 2,984 reported in 2016.
Why it matters: The citywide count underscores why a prompt Health Department report and a careful evidence record matter. A report addresses public-health follow-up; a civil claim still needs facts about the dog's prior behavior, the owner's notice and, in a building, any party with control.
Sources: nyc.gov · data.cityofnewyork.us
New York Agriculture and Markets Law §123(10) makes the owner or lawful custodian of a dangerous dog strictly liable for medical costs resulting from an injury caused by that dog.
Why it matters: That medical-cost rule is narrower than many people expect. A claim for pain, lost income or other damages still commonly depends on proof that the owner knew or should have known the dog had dangerous or vicious tendencies, so the file must preserve both treatment evidence and proof of prior behavior.
Sources: nysenate.gov · nycourts.gov
No obligation · Written for New York · New York County