Propensity is proved with documents and sworn recollection, not with adjectives. The useful material is specific and dated: a complaint someone filed, a warning taped in a lobby, a muzzle that appeared one week, a neighbor who changed which stairwell they used.
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) 914-9310Flanders v Goodfellow, decided April 17, 2025, is the current benchmark for what an evidentiary showing looks like. A postal carrier was bitten on December 8, 2018 while delivering a package. Two other postal workers swore that the same dog barked, snarled and bared its teeth at them, and slammed itself into the window glass as though trying to attack through it. The Court held that this raised a triable question of constructive knowledge, meaning the owners should have known of the propensity even without a prior bite. The carrier's injury was described as a snap tear in a shoulder muscle that required multiple surgeries and left permanent scarring.
Felice v Margolies, decided January 29, 2025, shows how little sworn material it can take to defeat a dismissal. The plaintiff was bitten in December 2018 while walking his own dogs on a Smithtown street, and summary judgment for the defendants was reversed because an affidavit from the plaintiff's mother raised a factual question about constructive knowledge. The lesson for a Manhattan file is that the witness does not have to be a professional, a party or a neighbor with a grievance. A relative who heard about the animal's behavior firsthand, dated and specific, is admissible material.
Two recurring shortcuts fail. In Castillo v Berne, decided August 14, 2024, the Second Department held that the fact a dog was a pit bull, standing alone, was insufficient to raise a triable issue about a landlord's awareness of a vicious propensity. Slotnick reached a similar conclusion about severity, holding that the nature of the attack itself did not establish prior knowledge. Collier is the older illustration: a family dog kept behind a kitchen gate when visitors arrived, with nothing showing the family feared it would hurt anyone, did not support the inference the plaintiff needed after a bite to a twelve-year-old's face.
New York City Health Code 161.02 gives one document unusual force. A Department record of a bite report made under section 11.03, or a record of a bite or other injury made by a police officer, is prima facie evidence that a dog is dangerous within the meaning of that article. The same definition covers a dog that menaces, threatens, attacks or bites a person who is peacefully conducting himself in a place where he may lawfully be. That is why the reporting call described elsewhere on this site has consequences beyond rabies follow-up: it creates a dated municipal record about the animal.
Several institutions hold propensity material without being asked. Health Code 161.07(l) requires a medical provider to forward records of an injury inflicted by a dog when the Department makes a written request. Health Code 161.07(b) requires a shelter to notify the Department no later than the first business day after a dog is admitted or after a sheltered dog injures a person, with the circumstances, contact information for injured persons, the owner and witnesses, and the types of injury. Outside the city, General Municipal Law 209-cc requires an annual written report to the municipal clerk for each address where a dog adjudicated dangerous is kept, and the clerk forwards it to police, fire and ambulance services.
Building material has the shortest life. Elevator and lobby recordings are frequently overwritten within days, porters rotate buildings, and message threads about a barking apartment get deleted when a group chat is cleaned out. A written preservation request naming camera positions and a date window, sent in the first week, is worth more than a subpoena served in month five. Alongside it: the 311 service-request history for the address, the incident report the managing agent prepared, and the names and phone numbers of anyone who has ever crossed the street to avoid that animal.
Prior Vicious Propensity Evidence 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 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
NYC 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
No obligation · Written for New York · New York County