DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - DOG BITE / ANIMAL ATTACK

STATE OF NEW YORK

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, New York ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of New York

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Adjuster Name / Dog Owner Name]
[Insurance Company Name / Address]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: DOG BITE CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Attack: [Date of Attack]
Location of Attack: [Address where attack occurred]
Dog Owner: [Dog Owner Name]
Dog Breed/Description: [Breed, Size, Color]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Homeowner's Policy Number: [If known]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for the serious and permanent injuries sustained as a result of a vicious dog attack that occurred on [Date of Attack]. The attack was perpetrated by a [Breed] dog owned by [Dog Owner Name]. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to New York Agriculture and Markets Law Section 121 and New York common law principles governing dog bite liability.

I. NEW YORK-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. New York's Hybrid Dog Bite Liability System

New York employs a hybrid system for dog bite liability, combining elements of strict liability and the common law one-bite rule:

1. Strict Liability for Medical Costs (Ag. & Mkts. Law Section 121)

Under New York Agriculture and Markets Law Section 121, when a dog is declared "dangerous" by a court or appropriate authority, the owner is strictly liable for medical costs resulting from a subsequent bite. The statute provides:

"The owner of a dangerous dog... shall be strictly liable for medical costs resulting from injury caused by such dog to a person, domestic animal or farm animal."

N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121(2) (emphasis added).

2. One-Bite Rule for All Other Damages

For damages beyond medical costs (pain and suffering, lost wages, etc.), New York follows the common law one-bite rule. The owner is liable only if they knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities.

The New York Court of Appeals articulated this standard in Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004):

"To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog... knew or should have known of such propensities."

B. Statute of Limitations

Under N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 214(5), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims in New York is three (3) years from the date of the injury. This claim arises from an attack that occurred on [Date of Attack], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

C. Pure Comparative Negligence

New York follows a pure comparative negligence doctrine under N.Y. C.P.L.R. Section 1411. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault.

Our client bears absolutely no responsibility for this attack.

D. Dangerous Dog Determination

Under N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121, a dog may be determined to be "dangerous" by a judge or justice of the peace when:
- The dog attacks a person, companion animal, or farm animal without justification, causing physical injury or death, OR
- The dog behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified threat of serious physical injury or death

[If applicable: The dog in this case [has been / should be] declared a "dangerous dog" pursuant to N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121.]

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this attack and the subject animal, including but not limited to:

• The animal itself (do not destroy, euthanize, or transfer without notice to our office)
• All veterinary records for the animal
• Vaccination records, including rabies vaccination
• Animal licensing and registration documents
• All photographs or videos of the animal
• Prior bite reports or complaints regarding this animal
• Prior aggressive incidents involving this animal
• Any "dangerous dog" declarations under N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121
• Communications with animal control or local authorities
• Homeowner's or renter's insurance policies
• Any liability exclusions or breed-specific riders
• Lease agreements (if renting) and any pet policies
• Training records for the animal
• Proof of confinement measures (fencing, leash, muzzle)

Destruction of any evidence, including euthanasia of the animal without proper notice and opportunity for examination, may constitute spoliation. New York courts impose sanctions for spoliation, including adverse inference instructions. See Ortega v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 69 (2007).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Attack

On [Date of Attack], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity - e.g., "walking on the public sidewalk in front of [Address]," "visiting the dog owner's residence as an invited guest," "in [his/her] own yard adjacent to the dog owner's property," etc.] in [City/Town/Village], [County] County, New York.

At that time, [Dog Owner Name]'s [Breed] dog [describe how attack occurred - e.g., "escaped from the owner's property through an unsecured gate," "was off-leash in violation of local leash laws," "broke free from its leash when the owner lost control," "attacked without warning or provocation," etc.].

The dog attacked our client viciously and without provocation. [Describe the attack in detail]:

[Example: "The dog lunged at our client, knocked [him/her] to the ground, and bit [him/her] repeatedly on the [body parts affected]. Our client attempted to protect [himself/herself] but was unable to fend off the animal. The attack lasted approximately [duration] before [describe how attack ended - e.g., 'the owner was able to pull the dog away,' 'bystanders intervened,' 'our client was able to escape,' etc.]."]

B. Owner's Knowledge of Vicious Propensities (Scienter)

THIS SECTION IS CRITICAL UNDER NEW YORK'S ONE-BITE RULE

The dog owner knew or should have known of the animal's vicious propensities. Under Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444, 450 (2004), evidence tending to demonstrate vicious propensities includes:

Prior Bite Incidents:
- This dog has bitten [number] other people on [prior dates].
- [Provide details of prior incidents if known.]

Prior Aggressive Behavior:
- This dog has displayed aggressive behavior on multiple occasions, including [describe: lunging, growling, snapping, baring teeth, chasing, attacking other animals, etc.].
- The Court of Appeals has recognized that a "propensity to growl, snap or bare teeth" can be sufficient to establish vicious propensities. Collier, 1 N.Y.3d at 447.

History of Attacks on Other Animals:
- This dog has previously attacked other dogs or animals, demonstrating a vicious propensity. See Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006).

Complaints to Animal Control:
- [Number] complaints have been filed with [City/County Animal Control Agency] regarding this dog.

"Dangerous Dog" Declaration:
- This animal has been officially declared a "dangerous dog" under N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121.

Warning Signs:
- The owner posted "Beware of Dog" signs on the property, which New York courts have recognized as evidence of the owner's awareness of the dog's propensities.

Owner Admissions:
- The owner has admitted [describe admissions regarding the dog's temperament, prior incidents, or aggressive behavior].

Witness Statements:
- Neighbors and others can attest to prior incidents or aggressive behavior involving this animal.

C. No Provocation

Our client did absolutely nothing to provoke this attack. At the time of the incident:

• Our client was peacefully and lawfully present at the location
• Our client was not interacting with or approaching the dog
• Our client was not engaging in any behavior that could be construed as threatening or provocative
• The dog's attack was entirely unprovoked and without justification

D. Post-Attack Response

Following the attack:

• Emergency medical services were summoned
• Police/Animal Control were notified
• An incident report was prepared (Report No. [Number])
• The animal was quarantined for rabies observation per N.Y. Public Health Law Section 2140
• Photographs of injuries were taken
• Witness information was obtained

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Strict Liability for Medical Costs

If the dog has been declared "dangerous" under N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121, the owner is strictly liable for all medical costs resulting from the attack. No proof of knowledge or negligence is required for this element of damages.

B. Knowledge-Based Liability for All Damages

Under New York common law, the dog owner is liable for all damages because:

1. Ownership: [Dog Owner Name] owned or harbored the [Breed] dog that attacked our client.

2. Vicious Propensities: The dog had vicious propensities abnormal to its class, as evidenced by [describe prior incidents, behavior, or characteristics].

3. Owner Knowledge: The owner knew or should have known of these vicious propensities, as evidenced by [describe evidence of knowledge].

4. Causation: The dog's vicious propensities were the proximate cause of our client's injuries.

C. Negligence Theory (Alternative)

In addition to knowledge-based liability, the dog owner is liable under traditional negligence principles:

1. Duty of Care

Dog owners owe a duty of reasonable care to prevent their animals from causing harm to others. This duty is heightened when the owner has knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities.

2. Breach of Duty

[Dog Owner Name] breached this duty by:
- Failing to properly secure the animal on the property
- Allowing the animal to roam off-leash
- Failing to maintain adequate fencing
- Failing to use a muzzle despite knowledge of vicious propensities
- Failing to adequately supervise the animal
- Failing to warn visitors of the dog's vicious propensities
- [Other specific breaches]

3. Negligence Per Se

The dog owner violated the following local laws, establishing negligence per se:
- [City/County] Code Section [Number] - Leash Law
- [City/County] Code Section [Number] - Running at Large Prohibition
- N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law Section 121 requirements (if applicable)
- [Other applicable ordinances]

D. Landlord Liability (If Applicable)

[USE IF ATTACK OCCURRED ON RENTAL PROPERTY]

Under New York law, a landlord may be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant's dog when the landlord:
1. Had actual or constructive knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities
2. Had sufficient control over the premises to require removal of the animal or take other action

See Strunk v. Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572 (1984).

[Landlord Name], as owner of the premises at [Address], is also liable for our client's injuries because:
- The landlord knew or should have known of the dog's vicious propensities
- The landlord had the authority under the lease to require removal of the animal
- The landlord permitted the dog to remain on the premises despite knowledge of the danger

E. Defenses Inapplicable

Provocation: Our client did nothing to provoke this attack. [He/She] was peacefully [describe activity] when attacked without warning.

Trespass: Our client was lawfully present at the location of the attack.

Comparative Fault: Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no responsibility for this attack. Under New York's pure comparative fault system (C.P.L.R. Section 1411), even if some fault were attributed to our client (which we deny), recovery would only be reduced proportionally, not barred.

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Description of Injuries

The attack caused severe and permanent injuries to our client, including:

Bite Wounds:
- [Location] - [Description: puncture wound, laceration, avulsion, etc.]
- [Location] - [Description]
- [Location] - [Description]

Secondary Injuries:
- Soft tissue damage
- Nerve damage
- Tendon/ligament damage
- Bone fractures
- Crush injuries
- Infection (including risk of rabies exposure)

Scarring and Disfigurement:
- Permanent scarring to [body parts]
- Disfigurement requiring plastic surgery
- Keloid formation

Psychological Injuries:
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
- Cynophobia (fear of dogs)
- Anxiety and panic attacks
- Depression
- Sleep disturbances / nightmares

B. Emergency Treatment

Immediately following the attack, our client was transported to [Hospital Name] Emergency Department, where [he/she] received:

• Wound irrigation and debridement
• Suturing / wound closure ([number] sutures)
• Tetanus prophylaxis
• Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) series
• Antibiotic therapy
• Pain management
• Diagnostic imaging (X-rays to rule out fractures)

C. Follow-Up Treatment

Wound Care:
- Provider: [Wound Care Specialist / Primary Care]
- Dates: [Treatment dates]
- Treatment: [Describe wound care protocol]

Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery:
- Surgeon: [Surgeon Name]
- Procedures: [Describe procedures - scar revision, skin grafting, etc.]
- Dates: [Surgery dates]

Infectious Disease Consultation:
- Provider: [ID Specialist Name]
- Treatment: [Rabies PEP, extended antibiotics, etc.]

Mental Health Treatment:
- Provider: [Therapist/Psychiatrist Name]
- Treatment: [PTSD treatment, EMDR, medication, etc.]
- Duration: [Ongoing / Number of sessions]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

Physical Status:
Our client has [describe current physical condition]:
- Permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Nerve damage resulting in [numbness / tingling / weakness]
- Limited range of motion in [body part]
- [Other permanent physical effects]

Psychological Status:
Our client continues to suffer from:
- PTSD symptoms triggered by [dogs, loud noises, etc.]
- Avoidance behaviors affecting daily life
- Ongoing anxiety and hypervigilance
- Nightmares and sleep disturbance

Future Treatment:
- Additional scar revision surgery anticipated
- Ongoing mental health treatment required
- [Other future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Pain and Suffering

Physical Pain:
Our client has endured excruciating pain from:
- The initial attack
- Multiple wound cleanings and debridement
- Suturing procedures
- Rabies vaccination series (multiple injections)
- Surgical procedures
- Ongoing pain from scarring and nerve damage

Emotional Distress:
- Terror during the attack
- PTSD symptoms disrupting daily life
- Fear of dogs limiting normal activities
- Anxiety and hypervigilance
- Depression related to disfigurement
- Embarrassment and self-consciousness about scars

Permanent Disfigurement:
- Visible, permanent scarring on [body parts]
- Impact on self-image and confidence
- Impact on personal relationships

Loss of Enjoyment of Life:
- Unable to enjoy outdoor activities due to fear of dogs
- Avoidance of parks, neighborhoods, friends' homes with dogs
- Loss of sense of safety

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the clear liability of the dog owner, the severity and permanence of our client's injuries, the significant disfigurement, and the ongoing psychological trauma, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

[OR - Policy Limits Demand:]

TENDER OF FULL POLICY LIMITS OF $[AMOUNT]

B. Time for Response

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

C. Basis for Demand

This demand reflects:
- Medical specials of $[Amount]
- Lost wages of $[Amount]
- A conservative multiplier for pain, suffering, and disfigurement
- The permanent nature of the scarring and psychological trauma
- Comparable verdicts and settlements in New York for similar dog bite cases
- The strength of the evidence establishing the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities

VIII. INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES

We demand disclosure of all applicable insurance coverage, including:

• Homeowner's insurance policy declarations page
• Renter's insurance policy (if applicable)
• Umbrella/excess liability policy
• Any exclusions or limitations for animal-related claims
• All policy limits applicable to this claim

Breed-Specific Exclusions:

We are aware that some homeowner's policies contain breed-specific exclusions. If any such exclusion exists, we demand:
1. A complete copy of the policy and all endorsements
2. Written confirmation of the exclusion
3. Disclosure of whether the dog owner was informed of the exclusion

If coverage has been denied based on a breed exclusion, we will pursue the dog owner personally for the full amount of damages.

IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Medical records and bills from all providers
• Photographs of injuries (immediately after attack and during healing)
• Police/Animal Control incident report
• Witness statements (if available)
• Employment records and wage verification
• Documentation of prior incidents involving this dog (if obtained)
• Mental health treatment records
• HIPAA authorizations

X. CONCLUSION

This was a vicious, unprovoked attack by a dangerous animal whose owner knew or should have known of its vicious propensities. Our client was an innocent victim who has suffered permanent physical scarring and ongoing psychological trauma.

The liability in this case is clear based on the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities. The damages are substantial and well-documented. We are prepared to file suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, [County] County, if necessary, and we are confident that a jury would return a verdict significantly exceeding this demand.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly and fairly. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss settlement.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
New York Bar Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

NEW YORK-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Hybrid Liability System: Strict liability for medical costs (if dog declared dangerous) under Ag. & Mkts. Law Section 121; one-bite rule for other damages.

• Vicious Propensities: Must prove owner knew or should have known of dog's vicious propensities. Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444 (2004).

• Evidence of Propensities: May include prior bites, attacks on other animals, growling/snapping, "beware of dog" signs. Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592 (2006).

• Pure Comparative Negligence: C.P.L.R. Section 1411 - recovery reduced but not barred by plaintiff's fault.

• Three-Year Statute of Limitations: C.P.L.R. Section 214(5).

• Dangerous Dog Procedure: Ag. & Mkts. Law Section 121 - judge or justice may declare dog dangerous after hearing.

• Landlord Liability: May be liable with knowledge and control. Strunk v. Zoltanski, 62 N.Y.2d 572 (1984).

• Punitive Damages: Available for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or malice.

• Collateral Source Rule: New York has modified the rule for certain medical expenses - C.P.L.R. Section 4545.

• Venue: Supreme Court in county where cause of action arose or where any party resides. C.P.L.R. Section 503.