Pet dogs aren’t just property — they’re family, a Brooklyn judge ruled this week.
The decision centers on a dachshund named Duke, who was hit by a car and killed two years ago in Mill Basin on July 4. Justice Aaron Maslow ruled Duke’s connection with his human family was so deep that they should be eligible for a type of compensation previously limited to people who witness a human family member being injured or killed.
Legal experts say the decision could pave the way for more New Yorkers to seek compensation by claiming their pet dogs as family members, not just property, when they are hurt or killed.
“The legal status of animals is currently undergoing a really important transformation, and this is part of a larger shift in how the law sees and treats animals,” said Christopher Berry, executive director of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “We’re moving from an outdated view of animals as mere things, to recognizing them as individuals who matter.”
According to the decision, Nan DeBlase was walking her son's 4-year-old dog Duke when he was hit. She said she remembers looking both ways before crossing East 64th Street along Strickland Avenue. But before she reached the other side of the intersection, she said in court papers, a driver made a left turn without stopping at the stop sign or using a turn signal and hit Duke.
DeBlase and her son, Trevor DeBlase, sued the driver, Mitchell Hill. Their lawsuit asks Mitchell to pay them for driving negligently, which they said caused the dachshund’s death, endangered Nan DeBlase and caused the family mental distress. Maslow ruled the case can move forward to a trial, and the DeBlases can seek compensation for their loss.
The judge said Nan DeBlase qualifies for a special type of payout that applies to people who watch an immediate family member die or suffer a serious injury while they’re also in danger. In prior New York cases, those types of damages have only applied to parents, children, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren. Following the Duke decision, they can also apply to pet dogs.
“Our clients are grateful for the court’s decision, which will enable them to obtain justice for their damages,” said Gregory T. Cerchione, the family’s attorney.
Attorneys for Mitchell did not respond to a request for comment. In court papers, they argued the DeBlases should not be able to seek compensation for the emotional toll of Duke’s death because pets are considered property in New York. They said the family should only be allowed to ask for a payout worth the actual dollar value of the dog.
For Trevor DeBlase, the judge agreed with Mitchell’s argument and said he would only be able to seek compensation for Duke’s value — estimated at $1,500 — and other costs associated with his death, like veterinary bills. That’s because Trevor DeBlase wasn’t physically with the dog when Duke was run over.
But in Nan DeBlase’s case, the judge decided that her presence at the scene — and the fact that she was physically tethered to Duke with a leash at the time — should make her eligible for broader damages.
The growing role of pets in the family
Maslow said in his decision that courts need to apply the law differently over time to match changing societal norms. In this case, the judge said, past decisions no longer align with the reality of people’s relationships with their pets.
The ruling noted several changes to New York law over the years that have elevated pets’ roles in the household. Maslow cited a 2021 state law that requires courts to consider the “best interest” of a pet when divvying up shared belongings in divorce or separation proceedings — not treat it like a car or home. He also pointed out that since 1996, state law has allowed New Yorkers to set up a trust to pay for the care of their pet.
The judge said it’s also become more common for pets to be recognized as family members outside of the legal system. Maslow cited a 2016 survey by the American Hotel and Lodging Association that found that 75% of “luxury, midscale and economy” hotels consider themselves “pet-friendly.” He also noted airlines typically let small dogs fly along with passengers in the cabin of planes.
Animal rights groups filed legal briefs in support of the DeBlases, including the Legal Action Network for Animals and the Nonhuman Rights Project, which several years ago sought the release of Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo. The New York Court of Appeals rejected the group’s argument that Happy was being subjected to illegal confinement and should be transferred to an elephant sanctuary. Now-Chief Judge Rowan Wilson disagreed at the time, arguing in a lengthy dissent that elephants have “substantial mental capacity” and that Happy is “a wild animal who is not meant to be caged and displayed.”
“The rights we confer on others define who we are as a society,” Wilson wrote.
Maslow said his ruling would only apply to people who are walking their pet on a leash when it gets hit by a car. Given that cats, rabbits and most other animals don’t go for walks on leashes, he said, the decision specifically applies to dogs.
Nora Marino, president of the Legal Action Network for Animals, applauded Maslow’s decision and said she hopes other judges will issue similar rulings.
“There are two ways to change laws: one is through the legislature, and the other is through the courts,” she said. “Every court decision, every case that recognizes that animals are more than just things is a necessary step in the right direction.”
Berry, with the Nonhuman Rights Project, said it takes time for the law to catch up with the values of society. He said the ruling in the DeBlase’s case marks an “incremental” but important step.
“What’s important about it is the principle that simply because the individual who was killed in the crosswalk was a dog, that doesn’t mean that they’re not a member of the family,” he said.
This story has been updated to include comment from the Legal Action Network for Animals.
