A retired New York State Police K-9 dog, attacked the plaintiff’s dog. Plaintiff sued the dog’s owner for damages. While the dog received “handler protection” training, where it is trained to react to an aggressive attack on defendant while on duty, it acted in passive role as an explosive detection dog.
Plaintiff argued that the severity of the attack coupled with the dog’s breed and formal police training. should have put defendant on notice of the dog’s vicious propensities.
Prior to the incident, the dog had never bit, barked at, or otherwise displayed aggression toward another person or animal. In affirming the dismissal of the case by the Ulster County, New York Supreme Court, the New York Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the formal police training was not evidence of viciousness and there was no support to plaintiff’s assertion that defendant kept her dogs as “guard dogs.”