Who Is Liable for a NY Apartment Building Dog Bite?
A dog bite in a New York apartment building, rental property, condominium, cooperative, or commercial property can involve far more than a single claim against the dog’s owner. One of the biggest mistakes an injured person can make is assuming that the first insurance policy identified is necessarily the only source of compensation. Depending on where the attack occurred, who owned or controlled the dog, who owned and managed the property, and what the responsible parties knew before the incident, several individuals or entities and multiple insurance policies may require investigation.
Consider a delivery driver attacked by a tenant’s dog in the common hallway of an apartment building. At first glance, the incident may appear to involve only the tenant and the tenant’s renters insurance. A more complete investigation, however, may raise questions concerning the landlord, building owner, property management company, and potentially additional insurance, including umbrella coverage. The difference between identifying one applicable policy and several legitimate sources of coverage can significantly affect the financial resources available to compensate someone who has suffered serious or permanent injuries.
At Greenstein & Pittari, LLP, we investigate New York dog bite claims from both a liability and insurance perspective. We examine the circumstances of the attack, identify potentially responsible parties, investigate property ownership and management, review potentially applicable insurance, preserve evidence, and determine whether additional coverage may exist before advising a client about settlement. If you or someone you love has been injured by a dog anywhere in New York, call Greenstein & Pittari, LLP at 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation. There are no upfront attorney’s fees, and you pay no attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for you.
Does Renters Insurance Cover Dog Bites in New York?
It may. Many renters insurance policies include personal liability coverage that may apply when an insured is legally responsible for bodily injury caused by a dog. In that respect, renters liability coverage can function similarly to the personal liability protection contained in many homeowners policies. Whether a particular dog bite is actually covered depends on the specific insurance contract and circumstances of the attack.
Policy language matters. Applicable exclusions, endorsements, coverage limits, the insured’s identity, and the facts surrounding the incident can all affect whether coverage exists. If coverage applies, the carrier may investigate the claim, provide legal defense, participate in settlement negotiations, and pay covered damages subject to the policy’s terms and limits.
The important point for an injured person is that renting rather than owning property does not automatically mean the dog owner is uninsured. A tenant may carry renters insurance even though the landlord owns the building. At the same time, renters insurance should not automatically be assumed to be the only potential source of coverage.
Can I Bring a Dog Bite Claim if the Dog Owner Rents the Apartment?
Yes. The fact that the dog owner rents rather than owns the property does not prevent an injured person from pursuing a legally valid dog bite claim. Renters insurance may provide liability coverage, and depending on the circumstances, other individuals, entities, or insurance policies may also require investigation.
Rental-property cases can actually present additional factual questions because the dog owner and property owner are different people. The investigation may need to determine who controlled the area where the attack occurred, whether the landlord or management company knew about the dog’s presence or prior behavior, whether complaints had been made, whether the attack happened inside the tenant’s apartment or in a common area, and what responsibilities were established by the lease or management arrangement.
A tenant’s lack of property ownership should therefore never be confused with the absence of insurance or legal responsibility. The appropriate approach is to investigate the tenant’s coverage while separately determining whether another party may have a legitimate connection to the incident.
Is a Landlord Automatically Liable When a Tenant’s Dog Bites Someone?
No. A landlord is not automatically responsible merely because a tenant owns or keeps the dog. Landlord liability requires a factual and legal basis. Depending on the circumstances, relevant issues may include whether the landlord knew about a dangerous dog, had sufficient authority or ability to address the situation, received prior complaints, controlled the area where the attack occurred, or otherwise had responsibilities tied to the incident.
This distinction is important because it would be inaccurate to assume that every apartment-building dog attack creates a valid claim against the building owner. A dog kept entirely inside a tenant’s apartment may present very different facts from an animal repeatedly allowed to roam or lunge at residents in a common hallway after management allegedly received complaints.
Determining whether a landlord may share responsibility therefore requires investigation. Lease provisions, pet policies, witness testimony, prior complaints, correspondence with management, incident reports, surveillance footage, and other evidence may help establish what the landlord knew, what control existed, and whether the facts support a claim.
When Can a Landlord’s Insurance Become Relevant to a Dog Bite Claim?
A landlord’s liability insurance may become relevant when the facts support a legally viable claim against the landlord. The existence of an insurance policy does not itself create liability. The injured person’s attorney must first determine whether the landlord’s conduct or responsibilities provide a legitimate basis for including the landlord in the case.
If that basis exists, the landlord’s insurance can become an additional part of the coverage analysis. This may be particularly important when the tenant’s insurance limits are inadequate to address catastrophic injuries, permanent facial scarring, future reconstructive surgery, nerve damage, substantial lost income, or other serious damages.
The investigation should therefore proceed in the proper order: determine who may legally bear responsibility, then identify and analyze the insurance those parties maintain. This approach helps distinguish a legitimate multiple-defendant claim from an effort to pursue a party merely because that party has insurance.
What if the Dog Bite Happened in an Apartment Building Hallway or Lobby?
A dog attack in a common area can raise additional questions about control, notice, property management, and insurance. Hallways, lobbies, elevators, staircases, courtyards, laundry rooms, entrances, and other shared spaces may involve responsibilities that differ from those governing the interior of an individual tenant’s apartment.
The investigation may examine how the dog entered the common area, whether it was leashed or otherwise restrained, whether similar incidents occurred previously, whether residents or employees complained, whether surveillance cameras recorded the event, and whether building management had information concerning the dog’s behavior. The responsibilities of the dog owner, landlord, property manager, condominium association, or cooperative corporation may differ depending on the particular property and circumstances.
Common-area cases should therefore be investigated promptly. Video may be overwritten, witnesses may become difficult to locate, and management records can become harder to obtain as time passes. Early evidence preservation can significantly affect both the liability and insurance investigations.
Why Are Apartment Building Dog Bite Cases More Complicated?
Apartment building cases can be more complicated because multiple individuals and entities may have separate responsibilities relating to the property. Depending on the building, those responsibilities can involve common areas, maintenance, property management, lease enforcement, security, and pet policies. As a result, the investigation may extend beyond the dog’s immediate owner.
Insurance can likewise be layered. Potential coverage may include renters insurance maintained by the tenant, liability insurance maintained by the landlord or building owner, separate insurance carried by a property management company, and umbrella or excess coverage. Which policies are actually relevant depends on whether the corresponding insured party has potential legal responsibility and whether the policy covers the occurrence.
These cases demonstrate why liability and insurance should be investigated together but analyzed separately. Multiple policies can increase the resources potentially available for compensation, but only when the underlying facts and policy terms support their application.
Can a Property Management Company Be Responsible for a Dog Bite?
Potentially, depending on its duties and conduct. Property management companies are sometimes overlooked during the early stages of an apartment-building dog bite investigation, even though they may have significant day-to-day responsibilities involving tenant communications, common areas, complaints, lease enforcement, or other aspects of building operations.
A management company’s role should be established through evidence, not assumed. The management agreement, correspondence, incident reports, complaints, witness testimony, and other records may help determine what responsibilities the company actually undertook and what information it possessed. When allegations involve negligent management, maintenance, or supervision and the facts support those allegations, the company’s separate liability insurance may become relevant.
This can matter because a property manager may maintain coverage separate from the building owner, landlord, condominium association, or cooperative corporation. A complete investigation should identify the relevant entities and understand their respective roles before determining which insurance policies may apply.
What Evidence Can Show That a Landlord or Property Manager Knew About a Dangerous Dog?
Evidence of prior notice can come from many sources. Residents may have complained about aggressive behavior. Building employees may have witnessed incidents. Management may have received emails, letters, maintenance requests, incident reports, or verbal complaints. Surveillance footage may show prior events in common areas, while lease or pet-policy records may establish what management knew about the dog’s presence.
Witnesses can be particularly valuable. Neighbors, postal workers, delivery drivers, maintenance employees, contractors, security personnel, and others may have encountered the dog before the attack. Their accounts can help establish whether the animal previously lunged, snapped, chased people, escaped confinement, or displayed other concerning behavior.
The significance of this evidence depends on the particular legal claim and facts. A complaint that a dog merely existed in an apartment is different from a documented report describing threatening or dangerous conduct. Attorneys should therefore investigate not only whether complaints were made, but precisely what was reported, when it was reported, who received it, and what occurred afterward.
How Do Lease Agreements and Pet Policies Affect an Apartment Dog Bite Case?
Lease agreements and pet policies can provide important information about the relationships among the tenant, landlord, building owner, and management company. They may address whether pets were permitted, whether approval was required, what rules governed animals in common areas, and what authority the landlord or manager retained concerning violations.
Those documents do not automatically establish negligence or liability. A lease violation alone does not necessarily prove that a landlord caused a dog attack. The significance of a particular provision depends on the surrounding facts and applicable law.
Nevertheless, lease documents can help define control and responsibility. Combined with prior complaints, correspondence, witness testimony, or evidence of repeated incidents, they may become part of a broader factual picture of what different parties knew and what ability they had to respond.
How Are Dog Bite Claims Different in Condominiums and Cooperatives?
Dog attacks in condominiums and cooperative buildings can present additional legal and insurance questions because ownership, occupancy, and responsibility for different portions of the property may be divided among several parties. Relevant issues may include whether the attack occurred inside a private unit or in a common area, who controlled the location, and what duties the unit owner, board, association, cooperative corporation, or managing agent had.
Insurance may be similarly divided. Depending on the facts, potentially relevant policies can include unit-owner insurance, condominium association coverage, cooperative corporation insurance, managing-agent liability coverage, and umbrella policies. These policies do not establish that every insured party is responsible, but they show why the insurance investigation can be more complex than in a single-family residence.
Governing condominium declarations, bylaws, proprietary leases, house rules, management agreements, and insurance documents may therefore become important. These materials can help establish which party controlled the location and what responsibilities existed when the attack occurred.
Who May Be Responsible for a Dog Bite in a Condominium Common Area?
Responsibility depends on the circumstances. An attack in a condominium lobby, elevator, hallway, courtyard, or other common area may require investigation of the dog owner, unit owner, condominium association, managing agent, and other parties whose conduct or responsibilities may be connected to the incident.
The location alone does not determine liability. Investigators may need to determine whether the dog was restrained, whether prior complaints existed, who controlled the common area, what rules governed pets, whether building personnel had encountered the dog previously, and whether any party with authority had notice of a dangerous condition.
Because different entities may maintain separate insurance, accurately identifying the potentially responsible parties can also affect the available coverage. The legal analysis should come first, followed by a careful review of the insurance each party may properly bear responsibility for.
Who May Be Responsible for a Dog Bite in a Cooperative Building?
A cooperative presents its own ownership and management structure. Depending on the circumstances, relevant parties may include the dog’s owner or keeper, the proprietary lessee or shareholder associated with the unit, the cooperative corporation, a managing agent, and potentially other individuals or entities.
As with condominium claims, the location of the attack can be important. An incident occurring entirely within a private apartment may present different questions from one occurring in a lobby, elevator, hallway, or other common space controlled by the cooperative or its managing agent.
The proprietary lease, house rules, pet policies, management documents, prior complaints, and insurance policies may all require review. A careful investigation helps determine which parties have a legitimate connection to the incident and which insurance policies may potentially respond.
What if a Dog Bite Happens at a Business or Commercial Property?
Not every dog attack occurs at a private home. Dogs may injure customers, workers, visitors, delivery personnel, and others at retail stores, offices, warehouses, construction sites, restaurants, hotels, leasing offices, parking lots, and other commercial properties. When that happens, commercial liability insurance may become part of the investigation.
Commercial-property cases require careful analysis of why the dog was present, who owned or controlled the animal, who operated the business, who controlled the premises, and whether the business or property owner engaged in conduct that contributed to the occurrence. The answers can determine whether the case involves only the dog’s owner or additional potentially responsible parties.
Commercial insurance also differs from residential insurance. Policy terms, insured entities, exclusions, coverage limits, and investigative procedures may be more complex. An attorney should therefore identify the relevant business relationships and insurance policies before determining the potential sources of recovery.
What Is Commercial General Liability Insurance in a Dog Bite Case?
Commercial General Liability insurance, commonly known as CGL coverage, generally provides businesses with liability protection against certain bodily injury and property damage claims arising from their operations, subject to the policy’s terms, conditions, and exclusions. Whether a dog bite falls within a particular CGL policy depends on the circumstances and the insurance contract.
Relevant considerations may include the nature of the business, who owns or controls the dog, where the attack occurred, why the animal was present, who the insured parties are, and whether an exclusion or endorsement affects coverage. A dog routinely kept on business premises can present different issues than an employee’s personal pet that happens to be present on one occasion.
Commercial policies can also insure multiple business entities or locations and may interact with other insurance. A serious dog bite at a commercial property therefore warrants a careful coverage analysis rather than assuming the same rules that apply to a standard homeowners policy will control.
Does Every Business Have Insurance That Covers Dog Bites?
No. Many businesses carry commercial liability insurance, but having a business insurance policy does not guarantee coverage for a particular dog attack. Coverage depends on the policy language and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
The first question is whether the business or another insured party may have legal responsibility for the occurrence. If a viable basis for liability exists, the next question is whether the relevant insurance covers that risk. Exclusions, endorsements, policy definitions, coverage periods, and other provisions can affect the answer.
This distinction protects against two opposite mistakes: assuming that a business must be responsible simply because it has insurance, or assuming that no commercial coverage is available because the dog belonged to an individual. Both liability and coverage require investigation.
Can a Business Owner and Property Owner Have Separate Insurance?
Yes. A commercial tenant operating a business and the property owner may be separate entities with different responsibilities and insurance policies. A property management company may also be involved. Whether any of those parties bears responsibility for a dog attack depends on the facts.
Lease agreements and other contracts may help establish who controlled particular areas and what responsibilities the parties assumed. The attack’s location, the identity of the dog’s owner or keeper, prior complaints, and the nature of the business can also affect the analysis.
When multiple entities have legitimate potential liability, separate insurance policies can become important. This is another reason attorneys should identify the legal and business relationships surrounding a commercial property rather than stopping after discovering the first liability policy.
What Is an Umbrella Insurance Policy?
An umbrella policy generally provides an additional layer of liability protection above the limits of certain underlying insurance policies, subject to the umbrella policy’s own terms, conditions, exclusions, and coverage requirements. For example, a homeowner may maintain both a homeowners liability policy and a separate personal umbrella policy.
If the umbrella coverage applies, it may provide additional insurance after the applicable underlying limits have been exhausted. This can become especially important when a dog attack causes catastrophic injuries, permanent disfigurement, multiple surgeries, substantial economic losses, or other damages that exceed the primary policy limits.
Not everyone has umbrella insurance, and you should never assume it exists. But failing to investigate whether additional coverage exists can leave an important part of the insurance picture undiscovered. A comprehensive insurance investigation should therefore consider potential excess or umbrella protection when the circumstances warrant it.
How Does Umbrella Insurance Affect a Serious Dog Bite Settlement?
Umbrella coverage can affect settlement strategy because it may increase the insurance available to compensate a victim whose damages exceed the underlying policy limits. This is particularly significant in cases involving permanent facial scarring, reconstructive surgery, severe nerve damage, substantial lost earning capacity, or long-term psychological harm.
Suppose the documented damages substantially exceed the primary liability limits. If no additional insurance exists, those limits may create an important practical issue during negotiations. If applicable umbrella coverage exists, however, the financial resources available through insurance may differ significantly.
The umbrella policy must still be analyzed. Attorneys should determine its limits, underlying coverage requirements, insured parties, exclusions, and how it interacts with the primary policy. The word “umbrella” does not guarantee payment, but in a serious case, you should not overlook the possibility of additional coverage.
Can More Than One Insurance Policy Apply to the Same Dog Bite?
Yes. Depending on the circumstances and the parties’ legal responsibility, a single dog attack may involve more than one insurance policy. The source material gives examples involving renters insurance, landlord coverage, property management insurance, commercial liability coverage, property-owner insurance, and umbrella policies.
A tenant’s dog attack in an apartment building, for example, may begin with an investigation of renters insurance but later require analysis of landlord or management-company liability. A dog attack at a business may involve commercial insurance and potentially other property-related coverage. A home health aide bitten while providing in-home care may present both employment-related and third-party insurance issues.
Multiple policies should never be presumed merely because several entities exist. Each potential defendant must have an appropriate factual and legal connection to the occurrence, and each policy must be evaluated independently. When those requirements are satisfied, however, multiple sources of coverage can significantly affect the potential recovery.
Does Having Multiple Insurance Policies Mean I Can Be Paid Twice for the Same Injury?
No. Identifying multiple policies is not meant to obtain duplicate compensation for the same damages. The purpose is to determine the full amount of insurance potentially available to satisfy a legitimate claim, particularly when one policy may be inadequate to address serious injuries.
For example, a victim whose damages exceed a primary policy’s limits may need to determine whether applicable excess or umbrella coverage exists. Similarly, when multiple defendants share responsibility, their respective insurance policies may matter in resolving the overall claim.
The relationship among multiple insurers can become complicated, including questions about primary and excess coverage and the responsibilities of different insured parties. An attorney can analyze those issues and ensure settlement discussions are based on an accurate understanding of the available coverage.
Why Shouldn’t I Assume the First Insurance Policy Found Is the Only Coverage?
Because the first policy discovered may reflect only the most obvious defendant. In a simple case, that policy may ultimately be the only applicable coverage. In a more complicated apartment-building, condominium, cooperative, or commercial-property case, further investigation may identify other legitimately responsible parties with separate insurance.
Stopping the investigation too early can be particularly consequential when the injuries are severe, and the first policy’s limits are relatively low. Settling without knowing whether additional coverage exists may prevent the claimant from making a fully informed decision about the case.
The source material emphasizes that experienced attorneys routinely investigate whether additional policies may apply and that multiple applicable policies can significantly affect the financial resources available for compensation.
Why Is Early Insurance Identification Important After a Dog Bite?
Insurance investigations can become more difficult over time. Property owners move, businesses close, management companies change, insurance policies renew, and records become harder to locate. Starting promptly allows attorneys to identify potentially responsible parties, investigate applicable policies, preserve evidence related to coverage, coordinate liability and insurance investigations, and develop a comprehensive settlement strategy.
Early investigation is especially valuable when the identity of the relevant parties is unclear. A victim may know the tenant who owned the dog but have no idea who owns the building, manages the property, insures the premises, or operates a business there. Those relationships can take time to establish.
Insurance should therefore not be treated as an issue to address only after medical treatment is complete. Understanding potential coverage early can shape the investigation and help ensure that important evidence and sources of recovery are not overlooked.
What Evidence Can Help Identify Additional Insurance Coverage?
The required evidence depends on the property and the parties involved. Property ownership records can identify building owners. Lease agreements may identify landlords, tenants, and contractual responsibilities. Management agreements can establish the role of a property management company. Business records may identify commercial operators, while condominium or cooperative documents can help define responsibility for private and common areas.
Insurance-related evidence can include policies, declarations pages, certificates of insurance, endorsements, and other coverage documents. Correspondence, incident reports, and prior complaints may also help establish why another party’s insurance is relevant by supporting the underlying liability claim.
The goal is not simply to collect insurance documents. It is to connect each potentially applicable policy to a party who may bear legal responsibility. That requires coordinating the liability investigation with the coverage investigation.
How Does the Location of the Dog Attack Affect Insurance Coverage?
Location can matter because it may help determine who controlled the area and which insurance policies may apply. An attack inside the dog owner’s private apartment may present different questions from an attack in a hallway, elevator, lobby, courtyard, retail store, office, hotel, parking lot, or other shared or commercial space.
In condominiums and cooperatives, the distinction between private units and common areas can be particularly significant. The governing documents may allocate responsibility differently depending on where the incident occurred. Commercial properties can likewise involve separate responsibilities for landlords, tenants, businesses, and management companies.
Location alone does not establish liability. It is one piece of the factual investigation. Combined with evidence of control, notice, dog ownership, prior incidents, and contractual responsibilities, it can help identify which parties and insurance policies require further analysis.
What if a Tenant’s Dog bites a Delivery Driver in an Apartment Building?
A delivery-driver attack in an apartment building may require investigating both workplace benefits and third-party liability. The dog’s owner or keeper is an obvious starting point, and renters insurance may provide potential liability coverage. If the attack occurred in a common area or other facts implicate the landlord or management company, those parties may also require investigation.
Depending on the worker’s employment status and circumstances, workers’ compensation benefits may also be available. Workers’ compensation and a third-party personal injury claim are different legal remedies and may interact through liens or other rules.
These cases illustrate why you should develop the entire factual and insurance picture. The injured worker may be dealing simultaneously with medical treatment, lost wages, an employer or workers’ compensation carrier, and one or more liability insurers. Coordinating those issues can be an important part of maximizing the lawful overall recovery.
What if a Home Health Aide or Visiting Nurse Is Bitten in a Patient’s Home?
A home health aide, visiting nurse, therapist, or other in-home professional may have a third-party claim against a legally responsible dog owner in addition to any workers’ compensation benefits available through employment. Homeowners or renters insurance may be relevant, and umbrella or other liability coverage may require investigation in a serious case.
These workers often must enter private residences and may have limited ability to avoid a dog without leaving the job site. The investigation can examine whether the resident knew about dangerous behavior, whether warnings were given, whether the worker previously requested that the animal be secured, and how the dog was controlled when the attack occurred.
Communications with the patient, family, employer, or agency may be important evidence. As with delivery-worker cases, evaluate the interaction between workers’ compensation and a third-party liability claim carefully.
What if the Dog Bite Happens at a Hotel, Restaurant, Store, or Office?
A dog attack at a commercial establishment may involve the dog’s owner, business operator, property owner, commercial tenant, or another party depending on the circumstances. A business’s presence does not automatically create liability, but it can raise additional questions about control, notice, operations, and insurance.
An investigation may examine why the dog was present, whether it belonged to an employee, owner, customer, tenant, or visitor, whether the business had animal policies, whether employees knew of prior dangerous behavior, and where on the premises the attack occurred.
If a business or commercial property owner has a legitimate basis for liability, commercial general liability or other business insurance may become relevant. Because commercial policies can differ substantially from residential policies, you should review coverage rather than assume it.
How Can Multiple Insurance Policies Affect the Value of a Dog Bite Case?
Insurance coverage and case value are related but different concepts. The value of a dog bite claim depends on liability and damages, including the severity of the injuries, permanent scarring, future treatment, lost income, emotional trauma, and other legally recoverable losses. Insurance limits do not determine what those injuries are worth.
Insurance does, however, affect the financial resources potentially available to satisfy a settlement or judgment. A catastrophic injury may have substantial damages even when the defendant has limited insurance. Conversely, identifying additional applicable policies may provide more insurance resources through which a valid claim can potentially be resolved.
For that reason, attorneys should evaluate damages independently while simultaneously investigating coverage. A victim should understand both what the claim may reasonably be worth and what legitimate sources of recovery are available before making important settlement decisions.
When Should an Attorney Investigate Insurance After a Dog Bite?
The investigation should begin as early as reasonably possible. Waiting until the victim finishes medical treatment can make it harder to identify the parties, locate policies, preserve surveillance footage, obtain management records, and investigate prior complaints.
Early insurance investigation does not mean settling a claim early. In fact, the opposite is often true. Identifying potential coverage promptly gives the attorney time to understand the case’s financial structure while the victim’s medical condition continues to develop.
By the time meaningful settlement negotiations begin, counsel should ideally understand the liability evidence, the medical prognosis, the potentially responsible parties, and the available insurance. That preparation lets the client evaluate settlement based on a much more complete picture.
Do I Need a Lawyer to Investigate Multiple Dog Bite Insurance Policies?
You are not legally required to retain an attorney simply because more than one insurance policy may exist, but multiple-party and multiple-policy cases can become complicated quickly. The investigation may involve property records, leases, management agreements, condominium or cooperative documents, business relationships, insurance policies, umbrella coverage, witness testimony, and legal questions concerning responsibility.
Insurance carriers also conduct their own investigations. Each insurer may take a different position concerning liability, coverage, or which carrier should respond to the claim. Those disputes can become particularly important when the injuries exceed the limits of one policy.
An experienced New York dog bite lawyer can coordinate the liability and insurance investigations, identify appropriate parties, obtain and analyze coverage information, document damages, negotiate with multiple insurers, and litigate the case when necessary.
Why Choose Greenstein & Pittari, LLP?
Dog bite cases involving rental properties, apartment buildings, condominiums, cooperatives, property management companies, businesses, or multiple insurance policies require careful investigation. The first insurance policy identified may be only one part of the case. At the same time, you should never pursue additional defendants and insurers without a legitimate factual and legal basis. Effective representation requires understanding who may be responsible, why that responsibility exists, and what insurance may properly apply.
For decades, Greenstein & Pittari, LLP has represented injury victims throughout New York. Our attorneys have extensive experience litigating complex personal injury cases, including claims involving property owners, businesses, institutions, and, when applicable, governmental entities. We conduct thorough investigations, examine ownership and management relationships, preserve evidence, identify potentially responsible parties and available insurance, document long-term damages, and prepare cases for aggressive litigation when necessary.
We also provide compassionate representation and personalized attention throughout the case. A serious dog attack can leave a victim dealing with permanent scars, future surgery, lost income, psychological trauma, and uncertainty about who will pay for the resulting losses. Our English- and Spanish-speaking staff helps clients and their families understand the legal and insurance issues affecting their claims and the options available at each stage.
If you or someone you love has been injured by a dog in an apartment building, rental property, condominium, cooperative, business, or anywhere else in New York, contact Greenstein & Pittari, LLP promptly. Consultations are free, and we handle personal injury matters on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront attorney’s fees. You pay no attorney’s fee unless we recover compensation for you.
Don’t Be a Victim Twice.
Call Greenstein & Pittari, LLP at 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) today for a free consultation. Let us investigate every potentially responsible party and every legitimate source of insurance coverage before you make decisions that could affect your recovery.