Ownership of a New York building is rarely one name. A deed holder, a managing agent, a co-op corporation, a condominium board and a sponsor can all sit above the same hallway, and only some of them had the power to do anything about the dog on the fourth floor.
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) 914-9310The controlling test for a property owner was restated in Agro v Olivieri on April 10, 2024. The injured person must show that the owner had notice a dog was being harbored on the premises, that the owner knew or should have known the dog had vicious propensities, and that the owner had sufficient control of the premises to remove or confine the animal. The court treated notice as an element of the claim rather than an affirmative defense, which puts the burden where it is hardest to carry. Control is usually the element that separates a viable claim from a dismissed one, because it turns on lease language and governing documents rather than on sympathy.
In a rental building the proprietary question is what the lease permitted the owner to do. In a cooperative the shareholder holds a proprietary lease and the corporation holds title, so house rules and the board's enforcement powers matter. In a condominium the unit owner holds the deed and the board governs common elements, which narrows what the board could have confined or removed. Castillo v Berne, decided August 14, 2024, applied the same three-element framework to a tenant's dog that knocked a delivery worker down twice and bit at his clothing, and reminded litigants that identifying the dog's breed does nothing to establish what the landlord was aware of.
The oldest thread in this area concerns the owner who knew before signing. Strunk v Zoltanski, decided July 3, 1984, held that a landlord who leases to a tenant knowing a vicious dog will be kept on the premises, and takes no reasonable precautions available through the lease or otherwise, may answer to a person later bitten there. The duty described is ordinary reasonable care rather than the strict liability imposed on the person harboring the animal. Later decisions treat knowledge acquired during a tenancy the same way where the owner retained the power to require confinement or removal.
Agriculture and Markets Law 108(15) defines an owner as any person who harbors or keeps a dog, and 108(10) defines harboring as providing food or shelter. A building that lets an animal live in a basement room, a superintendent who feeds a dog in a service corridor, or a management office that keeps a dog on site during the day can move from the premises analysis into the keeper analysis. That distinction changes which test applies and which insurance policy responds, so it is worth resolving early rather than assuming the building is only ever a premises defendant.
Notice is proved with dated paper. The useful requests name the incident report prepared after the attack, the porter and doorman logs for that shift, correspondence about the apartment, prior complaints in any channel management actually monitors, and any warning letter sent to the tenant. The 311 service-request history for the address is public. In the city, a Department record of a bite report under Health Code 11.03, or a bite record made by a police officer, is prima facie evidence under 161.02 that a dog is dangerous, and outside the city General Municipal Law 209-cc requires an annual report to the municipal clerk for each address where an adjudicated dangerous dog is kept.
The identity of the owner sets the calendar. Against a private owner, a managing agent or a co-op corporation, CPLR 214(5) allows three years from the date of the bite. Against a public housing authority or another city entity, General Municipal Law 50-e(1)(a) requires a notice of claim within ninety days after the claim accrues and 50-i(1) requires the action within one year and ninety days. Because a title search takes an afternoon and a missed municipal notice is usually fatal, the ownership question belongs at the front of the file rather than after the first settlement discussion.
Landlord and Building Owner Liability 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