Luật sư chuyên về các vụ chó cắn ở Buffalo

Not any more, and this changed recently. New York still lets you hold an owner strictly liable if they knew or should have known the dog had vicious propensities, shown through a prior bite, lunging, growling, or earlier complaints. In Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025) the Court of Appeals overruled Bard v. Jahnke and held that a victim may instead bring an ordinary negligence claim, arguing the owner simply failed to use due care. You now have a choice of theories.

Three years from the date of the injury, under CPLR § 214. Claims against a city or public authority carry much shorter notice deadlines, often 90 days, so get advice quickly if a municipal agency may be involved.

New York uses pure comparative fault under CPLR § 1411. Your recovery is reduced by your share of responsibility but is never barred outright, even if you were mostly at fault.

Renters liability coverage usually applies, and a landlord who knew the dog was dangerous and had the ability to remove it may also be responsible, which can open a second policy.

For nearly twenty years, New York victims who could not prove the owner knew the dog was dangerous had no claim at all. Flanders v. Goodfellow removed that bar in 2025, so a victim can now argue ordinary negligence, such as an owner who let a known-difficult dog rush an open door. It is a meaningful expansion, and older guidance you may read online has not caught up.

Get medical care, then report the bite to your local animal control or health department so the dog can be observed and an official record exists. Photograph the injuries and the scene, and collect the owner’s insurance details and witness contacts.