New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: May 21, 2025

Dog Bite Victim Allowed to Pursue Negligence Claim. Flanders v Goodfellow, 2025 NY Slip Op 02261

by Stephen Bilkis

In April 2025, the New York Court of Appeals reversed long-standing precedent by allowing a dog bite victim to pursue a negligence claim, not just a strict liability claim. Rebecca Flanders worked as a postal carrier. On December 8, 2018, she delivered a package to the home of Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow. Their mailbox was missing, so Flanders pulled into the driveway and approached the front door. She did not see any warnings about a dog on the property. As she handed the package to Stephen Goodfellow, she heard a dog approaching inside the house. The dog ran through the open door and bit her on the shoulder, causing serious injury that later required multiple surgeries.

The Goodfellows had owned the dog for several years. It weighed about 70 pounds. They had hired a trainer due to behavioral issues, including incidents where the dog dragged Michelle to the ground while on a leash. The trainer noted that the dog got into a fight with another dog but did not observe aggression toward people. According to the Goodfellows, the dog had not previously bitten or attacked anyone.

However, two other postal workers submitted sworn affidavits describing the dog’s behavior during their deliveries. Both workers stated that the dog growled, snarled, and slammed into the windows as if trying to break through. One described it as the most aggressive dog on his route. Neither had reported the behavior formally but believed the homeowners should have seen or heard it.

Published on: May 19, 2025

Worker Injured After Fall from Ladder on Home Renovation Project. Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, 57 A.D.3d 121 (2d Dep’t 2008)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, the Appellate Division, Second Department, considered whether a homeowner could be held liable for injuries suffered by a construction worker who fell from a ladder during a porch renovation. The court evaluated whether the worker’s claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) could survive summary judgment and clarified how courts should approach cases involving equipment provided by property owners.

Background Facts

Nazrul Chowdhury worked as a laborer for Williamsburg Construction. His employer had been hired to rebuild the front porches of a two-family home in Ridgewood, Queens. The property was occupied by Antonio and Judith Rodriguez, along with their family, and another tenant, Clemente Almonte. Chowdhury’s daily work included tasks like measuring and laying cement.

Published on: May 17, 2025

Landlord Liability for Dog Bite Injury on Leased Property. Strunk v. Zoltanski, 96 A.D.2d 1074 (2d Dep’t 1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Strunk v. Zoltanski, the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed whether a landlord could be held legally responsible for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. The case involved an incident where a child was bitten by a dog while on leased property. The court considered whether the landlord’s knowledge of the dog’s behavior at the time of leasing the property created a duty to prevent the injury.

Background Facts

On May 8, 1979, a child was bitten on the face and arm by a German Shepherd while visiting residential property. The dog belonged to a tenant who rented the home from the defendant, Sophie Zoltanski. The child’s mother filed a negligence lawsuit against both the tenant and the landlord. She sought compensation for her son’s injuries and for the loss of his services.

Published on: May 11, 2025

When Is a Dog Owner Liable for a Dog Bite in New York? Collier v. Zambito, 1 NY3d 444 (2004)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Collier v. Zambito, the New York Court of Appeals examined whether the owners of a family dog could be held liable for a bite injury to a child who had been invited into their home. The court focused on whether the dog showed any prior signs of vicious behavior and whether the owners had notice of such behavior.

Background Facts

On December 31, 1998, 12-year-old Matthew Collier was visiting the home of Charles and Mary Zambito. Matthew had been there before to visit their son. The Zambitos owned a mixed breed dog named Cecil. The family typically confined Cecil to the kitchen, especially when visitors were present, because the dog would bark. On the night of the incident, Matthew went downstairs to use the bathroom. When he exited the bathroom, Mrs. Zambito invited him to approach Cecil, who was on a leash.

Published on: May 3, 2025

New York Court Limits Animal Injury Claims to Vicious Propensity Rule. Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Bard v. Jahnke, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a property owner could be held liable for injuries caused by a domestic animal—specifically, a dairy bull—under a common-law negligence theory. The court considered whether an owner could be held responsible for failing to warn or restrain an animal that, while not previously aggressive, belonged to a class known to be dangerous.

Background Facts

On September 27, 2001, Larry Bard, a self-employed carpenter, visited Hemlock Valley Farms, a dairy farm in Otsego County. He had been invited by another carpenter, John Timer, to assist with repairs to cow mattresses in the barn’s “low cow district.” Timer had previously worked on various farm tasks and was asked to do this job by one of the farm owners’ sons. Neither Timer nor Bard saw any animals when they walked through the barn that morning.

Published on: April 26, 2025

When a Broken Lock Leads to Tragedy. Scurry v New York City Housing Authority, 2023 NY Slip Op 02752

by Stephen Bilkis

In Scurry v New York City Housing Authority, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether the Housing Authority could avoid liability where intruders gained access to buildings through doors with broken locks and committed violent attacks. The key question was whether the targeted nature of the attacks severed the link between NYCHA’s failure to maintain secure entryways and the resulting injuries.

Background Facts

The Court of Appeals decided two related cases. Both involved murders committed by intruders who entered public housing complexes where exterior doors allegedly lacked working locks.

Published on: April 20, 2025

When Can a Product Be Defective Under Warranty But Not Strict Liability? Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995)

by Stephen Bilkis

In product liability law, plaintiffs often sue under both strict products liability and breach of implied warranty. In Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995), the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a manufacturer could be held liable under one theory but not the other. The court clarified that the two causes of action are distinct and can lead to different outcomes based on the facts presented. The decision offered guidance for product liability lawsuits in New York.

Background Facts

In 1986, Nancy Denny was injured when her Ford Bronco II rolled over while she was trying to avoid hitting a deer. Denny and her husband filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. They claimed that the vehicle’s design made it more likely to roll over, and that Ford breached the implied warranty of merchantability and was strictly liable for the design defect.

Published on: April 11, 2025

Injury Claims Denied in Baler Machine Case Due to Modification. Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 175 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)

by Stephen Bilkis

In product liability cases, courts often examine how a product was used at the time of the accident and whether it had been changed from its original condition. In the case of Cacciola v. Selco Balers, Inc., the court had to decide whether a manufacturer could be held responsible for injuries caused by a machine that had been altered after it was sold. The court also reviewed whether the manufacturer had failed to provide proper warnings. This blog reviews how the court handled the claims, the evidence presented, and what the decision means for similar product liability claims in New York.

Background Facts

Frank Cacciola was injured on December 3, 1996, while using a baler machine at his workplace, a Pepsi Cola plant in Brooklyn, New York. The baler was used to compress cardboard boxes and had a safety feature known as an interlock switch. This switch prevented the machine from operating if the safety gate was open. On the day of the incident, the interlock switch had been disabled with wire, allowing the machine to run even when the safety gate was open.

Published on: April 3, 2025

Was General Motors Liable for the Design of the 1973 Chevrolet Malibu? Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Cover v. Cohen, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether a car manufactured by General Motors was defective under strict products liability. The case also considered whether the evidence presented at trial was proper and whether the judgment against both General Motors and the car dealer, Kinney Motors, should stand. The court’s decision clarified how post-manufacture safety standards and later modifications may be treated in a design defect claim.

Background Facts

In June 1974, Irving Cohen was operating a 1973 Chevrolet Malibu. He had purchased the vehicle from Kinney Motors in October 1972. According to Cohen, while attempting to parallel park on a Brooklyn street, he placed the car in reverse when it suddenly accelerated backward. He claimed the car would not stop despite having his foot on the brake. The car traveled 70 feet in reverse, mounted a curb, and struck a building.

Published on: March 7, 2025

Was General Motors Liable for the Design of the 1973 Chevrolet Malibu? Cover v. Cohen, 61 N.Y.2d 261 (1984)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Cover v. Cohen, the New York Court of Appeals reviewed whether a car manufactured by General Motors was defective under strict products liability. The case also considered whether the evidence presented at trial was proper and whether the judgment against both General Motors and the car dealer, Kinney Motors, should stand. The court’s decision clarified how post-manufacture safety standards and later modifications may be treated in a design defect claim.

Background Facts

In June 1974, Irving Cohen was operating a 1973 Chevrolet Malibu. He had purchased the vehicle from Kinney Motors in October 1972. According to Cohen, while attempting to parallel park on a Brooklyn street, he placed the car in reverse when it suddenly accelerated backward. He claimed the car would not stop despite having his foot on the brake. The car traveled 70 feet in reverse, mounted a curb, and struck a building.