Personal Injury · Dog Bite Liability
Dog Bite Laws in New York
Whether New York holds a dog owner automatically liable, follows the one-bite rule, or takes a mixed approach — plus landlord liability and the main defenses.
How liability works in New York
A hybrid — the two prongs below apply differently.
Recoverable on a strict-liability basis under Agriculture & Markets Law §123 once the dog is adjudicated "dangerous" — you need not prove the owner knew anything.
You must prove the owner knew of the dog’s vicious propensity — or, after Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025), ordinary negligence, even if the dog never showed aggression before.
This is a hybrid that splits by the type of damage you claim.
Landlords & defenses
Who else can be liable, and what defeats a claim.
Comparative negligence reduces pain-and-suffering awards, but §123 medical costs are not reduced by the victim’s fault.
The full picture, with the source
Every field, and any recent development.
| Liability model | Mixed / hybrid |
| Basis | Statute + common law — Statute + common law — Agric. & Mkts. Law §123 (medical) + Flanders v. Goodfellow (2025) |
| What it covers | For strict medical-cost recovery under §123, the dog must meet or be adjudicated "dangerous." For broader damages, you show the owner knew of a vicious propensity or breached a duty of care (the post-2025 negligence path). |
| Landlord | Generally no — under the vicious-propensity/negligence framework a landlord needs actual knowledge the dog was dangerous plus the ability to remove it. |
| Main defenses | No vicious propensity / no knowledge · No negligence · Provocation · Trespassing |
Flanders v. Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 (decided 2025-04-17): The Court of Appeals overruled Bard v. Jahnke and restored an ordinary-negligence path against dog owners — a victim can now sue for the owner’s carelessness even if the dog never showed viciousness before. Sources published before 2025 that say "New York has no negligence claim" are out of date.
What New York dog-bite victims get wrong
New York is the classic "mixed" state, and it just got more complicated in the victim’s favor. It splits by the type of damage: your medical and veterinary bills are recoverable on a strict-liability basis under Agriculture & Markets Law §123 when the dog is adjudicated dangerous, but your pain, suffering, and lost wages have traditionally required proof the owner knew the dog was vicious. That second half changed in April 2025, when the Court of Appeals decided Flanders v. Goodfellow, overruled Bard v. Jahnke, and restored an ordinary-negligence claim — so you can now sue a careless owner even if the dog had never bitten anyone. Any explainer written before 2025 that tells you New York has "no negligence path" is describing law that no longer exists.
Common questions
Is New York a strict-liability state for dog bites?
Only partly. Medical and veterinary costs are strict under Agriculture & Markets Law §123 for a dog adjudicated dangerous, but other damages require proving the owner’s knowledge or negligence. That makes New York a mixed state.
What did Flanders v. Goodfellow change in 2025?
The Court of Appeals overruled Bard v. Jahnke and restored an ordinary-negligence claim against dog owners, so a victim can recover for a careless owner even if the dog never showed viciousness before.
Can I recover pain and suffering for a dog bite in New York?
Yes, but not on a strict basis. You must prove the owner knew of the dog’s vicious propensity or — since Flanders (2025) — that the owner was negligent.
Are my medical bills reduced if I was partly at fault in New York?
No. Section 123 medical costs are not reduced by comparative fault, though pain-and-suffering awards on the negligence path can be.
Not legal advicePlainStatute provides plain-language summaries of public law for general information only. This is not legal advice. Statutes change; always confirm current requirements with the official source linked above before acting.