Landlord Not Responsible for Dog Attack on Food Delivery Person
LVT Number: #33531
A food delivery person sued landlord NYCHA, claiming that he was injured when bitten by a dog while delivering food in the building. Landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without trial. The court ruled for landlord.
The injured person appealed and lost. The appeals court pointed out that the sole means of recovery of damages for injuries caused by a dog bite or attack is "upon a theory of strict liability." Therefore, the injured party must demonstrate that the landlord: (a) had notice that a dog was being kept at the building; (b) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities; and (c) had sufficient control of the premises to remove or confine the dog.
In this case, landlord demonstrated that it neither knew about the dog or that it had violent propensities. The plaintiff stated in pre-trial testimony that he had complained about the dog on a prior occasion to one of landlord's employees. But he was unable to identify that employee or produce any proof of his alleged prior complaint. He also failed to show that the unidentified employee was responsible for the property, was a manager of the property, or was an agent for landlord.
Gershik v. NYCHA: Index No. Index No. 515897/18, App No. 2022-02693, 2024 NY Slip Op 06593 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; 12/24/24; Miller, JP, Ford, Love, Golia, JJ)