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.
The plaintiff claimed that Zoltanski had known about the dog’s aggressive behavior before she rented the property to the tenant. The plaintiff alleged that even with this knowledge, Zoltanski still allowed the tenant to keep the dog on the property. In response, Zoltanski denied having any knowledge about the dog’s behavior or the tenant’s intention to keep the animal on the property.
Zoltanski filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to have the case dismissed as to her. She argued that even if she did not dispute the facts, the law did not support a negligence claim against her as a landlord. The lower court denied her motion, and she appealed.
Question Before the Court
Whether a landlord could be held liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog when the landlord had knowledge of the dog’s dangerous behavior at the time the lease was signed.
Court’s Decision
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision and allowed the case to proceed to trial. The court held that under certain conditions, a landlord could be found liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. Specifically, if a landlord had actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous behavior and still leased the premises to the tenant without any restrictions, a jury could find that the landlord failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury.
Discussion
Under general New York law, landlords are not usually liable for injuries caused by a tenant’s dog. This is because once a lease begins, the landlord gives up possession and control of the property. Without control, the landlord is typically not responsible for events that occur on the leased premises.
Courts have applied this principle in cases where a dangerous condition or animal came into existence after the lease started. In those situations, unless the landlord retained control or had a specific duty to act, the law did not hold the landlord accountable.
However, Strunk v. Zoltanski was different. The plaintiff alleged that Zoltanski knew about the dog’s behavior before leasing the property and could have refused to rent to the tenant or could have added a clause in the lease banning dogs. This meant that she had a degree of control at the time the risk was created. According to the court, this set of facts, if proven at trial, could justify holding the landlord liable for failing to act reasonably.
The court cited earlier decisions that supported this distinction. It noted that prior rulings had denied landlord liability either because the landlord lacked control or because there was no proof of knowledge of the animal’s behavior. In contrast, if the landlord had actual knowledge of a dog’s dangerous tendencies before leasing the premises and still failed to act, the situation could lead to a different legal result.
The court explained that a landlord in such a position could avoid the risk of injury by choosing not to rent to the tenant or by placing conditions on the lease to prevent the dog from being kept on the property. By failing to take those steps, the landlord may have breached a duty to keep the property safe for lawful visitors.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the plaintiff had alleged facts that, if proven, would support a negligence claim against the landlord. The landlord’s prior knowledge of the dog’s behavior and her control at the start of the lease created a question of fact that could not be resolved without a trial. The appellate court therefore allowed the case to proceed.
This case clarified that while landlords are usually not liable for injuries caused by tenants’ animals, an exception may apply if the landlord knew about the risk before leasing the property and had the ability to prevent the danger. It emphasized the importance of timing and knowledge when evaluating a property owner’s legal responsibility.