Kings County Supreme Court Justice Aaron D. Maslow issued a landmark decision in June of 2025 (DeBlase v. Hill), after a witness saw a dog get struck and killed by a car in a Brooklyn crosswalk. The dog was on a leash and the women holding the leash was walking with the dog across the street when the dog was killed.
This decision becomes the footing for people claiming damages for emotional shock if they are in physical danger (“zone of danger”) and watch their leashed dog get killed or hurt. It also is the first to explicitly apply the phrase “immediate family” to a pet. Thus creating a momentous push for New York’s animal welfare laws, possibly changing the way law perceives human/pet relationships, at least in cases where the owner is physically present and directly bonded to the animal, and in the “zone of danger”. The judgement thereby becomes the “first” in New York Courts that a dog’s handler could sue for emotional distress damages, shifting away from law viewing pets strictly as personal property but more as family members. Maslow backed up his decision by pointing to growing social and legal recognition of pets as family.
In a historical context, New York law has always identified pets as personal property, with damages only limited to the market value of the animal. However, today’s societal norms are putting pressure on NY Courts to change this view. In fact, Americans are now looking for animal laws to include emotional distress damages; thus shifting court viewing of pets as sentient beings, with rights. This aligns with a 2023 Pew Research Center poll showing that 97 percent of Americans believe pets to be like children and are on the same level as other humans within their own family unit. Thus, there is no doubt that “societal norms have evolved such that dogs have become cherished family members in multispecies households, making their untimely deaths acutely heartbreaking and tragic”. (The Nonhuman Rights Project Amicus Brief)
This Court decision does not rewrite animal property laws, yet. But there is growing recognition that it may. In the eyes of the law, animal guardians share a legal relationship with their companion animals, not as family members, but as property owners. The concept of property ownership or title refers to the possession, use and disposal of a thing. Thus, companion animals still possess no legal rights, may neither own nor inherit property, and the owners of companion animals as property may not sue in the companion animal’s name. NY Courts have a long way to go to change codified animal law all together. However, this along with other recent NY Court cases, it is a start.
Legal personhood for pets is gaining momentum. And as we can see from other NY Court cases, personhood for pets is making its mark in our court systems. For example, recent shifts in New York law include, (1) The Flanders Decision where the 2025 ruling shifted how courts evaluate dog bite cases by allowing victims—especially children—to pursue fuller non-physical, psychological damages resulting from negligence, rather than a dog’s “prior vicious history”, (2) Pet Custody in Divorces where New York law now requires judges in divorce proceedings to consider the “best interests” of a companion animal when deciding ownership, and (3) The Puppy Mill Ban, a statewide ban prohibiting retail pet shops from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits, thus, stopping the pipeline of animals from abusive commercial breeding mills.
In the short term, the US Courts seem to be headed toward a middle ground: recognizing pets’ family-like status in custody, housing, and protective contexts, while cautiously expanding remedies for harm with strict caps and protections for animal care professionals. On the one hand we have animal activists wanting Courts to recognize the relationship between a human and domestic animal, thus fully encompassing the role that such animals play in people’s lives. On the other Veterinary and animal care groups, including the American Veterinary Medical Association, are pushing back on extending damages to include emotional distress, expressing concerns that changing the law could raise costs for animal care and veterinary liability.
What are your thoughts!