Landlord May Be Responsible for Tenant's Dog Biting Mailman

A U.S. Postal Service mail carrier sued landlord in 2016 after he was bitten by tenant's dog while delivering the mail. The mailman claimed that landlord was strictly liable for his injuries. After pre-trial questioning, landlord asked the court to dismiss the case without holding a trial. The court ruled against landlord.

Landlord appealed and lost. There were questions of fact concerning whether landlord knew or should have known that tenant's dog had vicious propensities. To recover against a landlord for injuries caused by a tenant's dog on a theory of strict liability, a plaintiff must show that the landlord: (a) had notice that tenant kept a dog; (b) knew or should have known that the dog had vicious propensities; and (c) had sufficient control of the premises to allow landlord to remove or confine the dog. "Vicious propensities" include the propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation. Proof of vicious propensities includes a prior attack or a dog's tendency to growl, snap, or bare its teeth. Here, while landlord claimed it neither knew nor should have known about the dog's tendencies, the mailman testified in a deposition that he had spoken with the landlord multiple times since 2011 about the dog's aggressive behavior and tendency to growl and bare its teeth. Questions of credibility couldn't be resolved in a motion for summary judgment.

Quintanilla v. Schutt: Index No. 608726/17, Case No. 2020-04015, 2023 NY Slip Op 00339 (App. Div. 2 Dept.; 1/25/23; Duffy, JP, Connolly, Wooten, Taylor, JJ)