Landlord Didn't Know Tenant's Dog Was Vicious

January 13, 2013

LVT Number: #24548

A man sued landlord and tenant of a house owned by landlord after his son was bitten by tenant's dog. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled against landlord, who appealed and won. Landlord was aware that tenant kept the dog and could have required tenant to remove or confine the animal. There was also proof that the dog had vicious tendencies since it had previously tried to attack mail carriers and others who came to the door. But landlord neither knew nor should have known of the dog's vicious propensities.

A man sued landlord and tenant of a house owned by landlord after his son was bitten by tenant's dog. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without a trial. The court ruled against landlord, who appealed and won. Landlord was aware that tenant kept the dog and could have required tenant to remove or confine the animal. There was also proof that the dog had vicious tendencies since it had previously tried to attack mail carriers and others who came to the door. But landlord neither knew nor should have known of the dog's vicious propensities. So landlord couldn't be held responsible for the dog attack on the child.

Faraci v. Urban: 2012 NY Slip Op 09233, 2012 WL 6720938 (App. Div. 4 Dept.; 12/28/12; Smith, JP, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino, Whalen, JJ)

Topics

More like this