Dogs aren’t just man’s best friend, they’re family.
That’s the argument lawyers for a bereaved Brooklyn man made before a judge on Thursday while attempting to sue the driver who killed his beloved dachshund Duke.
Trevor Deblase says his emotional trauma has more value than allowed under the law, which in New York state currently considers dogs to be mere property.
That definition is “antiquated and needs to be changed based on modern society’s views that pets are considered to be members of the family, and not just personal property,” attorney Andrew Bokar argued in Brooklyn Supreme Court.
The cherished four-year-old Duke’s life was tragically cut short last summer — just a few months after he walked down the aisle at Deblase’s wedding, dressed in a sharp tux.
“A few hours ago a man blew a stop sign, almost hit my mother and hit my poor sweet Duke and killed him,” Deblase wrote on his Instagram page on July 4, 2023.
“I can’t even believe I am typing these words right now,” the post reads. “I loved this dog more than life itself and things will never be the same without him.”
Video shows the crazed driver blasting through a stop sign in Mill Basin, running Duke over and narrowly missing Deblase’s mother, who was walking her son’s dog.
Deblase and his mother filed suit against the pup-killing driver last August, but are now asking Judge Aaron Maslow to rule that dogs should be considered kin.
That definition of family is the legal key to unlock their claims of emotional distress — and a potential payout from the driver.
Since pets are generally considered personal property under the law, the maximum amount Deblase could sue for currently is the market value price paid for Duke and any vet fees associated with his death and cremation, roughly $2,000 in total.
The Deblase family’s argument for negligent emotional distress over Duke’s death comes from a legal concept known as zone of danger, which limits such claims to relatives who were in harm’s way when their loved one was killed.
“If you’re walking hand in hand with your son and your son gets run over, you’re within the zone of danger,” said Eric Subin, a lead attorney at the firm working with the Deblase family.
In Duke’s case, Deblase’s mother, Nan, was just a leash away from being run over herself and would qualify, his lawyers argue.
But courts have so far argued that to qualify for that claim, the impacted person must be immediate — human — family only.
The classification of family is currently so limited under that legal rule that it was only recently expanded to include grandparents, meaning if a person walking with an aunt, a nephew or a childhood best friend — they cannot sue for the emotional distress after witnessing their brutal death just inches away.
Lawyers for Deblase argued that the standard of immediate family should be expanded to include Duke and all other dogs and companion pets.
When Duke was killed, Deblase ordered a cherry box to store his ashes, and ordered a paw print of his late pup, the attorneys noted.
“One does not do such things for an inanimate object or item of property,” reads an amicus brief filed in support of Deblase. “One does such things for a family member.”
But lawyers for the driver said such a dramatic change shouldn’t be decided in the courts, and argued a ruling in favor of Deblase would have cascading effects, including spiking costs for dog walkers, groomers and veterinarians.
Deblase wants “the court to go from zero to 100,” in expanding the zone of danger family definition beyond grandparents to “involve a grand-dog,” attorney Deborah Zachary argued in court.
“Expanding the zone of danger to involve pets does nothing to affect the welfare of the pet — it’s only money for the owner,” Zachary said, adding that courts would be overwhelmed with “new theories of liability.”
“A dog walker would be bankrupt if this was to be permitted,” she told the judge, “a dog walker can’t get insurance. A small business could be put out of business.”
Other examples of the law treating pets as more than mere property, like in divorce cases, were done through passing legislation, Zachary noted, not through a court trial.
Briefs filed on behalf of the driver rejected Deblase’s claims outright, saying that setting a new standard ostensibly makes dogs people and would go against all current precedent in New York animal law.
Including, famously, the Happy the Elephant case, where the state’s top court rejected an effort to sue for human rights claims on behalf of a not-so-happy caged pachyderm at the Bronx Zoo — a claim that the court argued would have bestowed the animal with personhood.
One of the two judges who sided with Happy the Elephant in a dissenting opinion back in 2022, Rowan Wilson, is now chief judge of New York’s highest court — which could end up hearing the Duke case if the claim goes that far.
Noted attorney Nora Marino, who filed an amicus brief in support of Deblase on behalf of Legal Action Network for Animals, said that compared to the case of Happy The Elephant, this “is a much less extreme ask.”
“We’re not asking for habeas corpus. We are asking for the definition of immediate family to just take that one more step outward, to expand just that little bit to include the family dog,” Marino told the judge.
Any unintended consequences that come about as a result of the change wouldn’t necessarily be bad, she argued, such as in cases of veterinary malpractice where current laws mean pet owners are only able to claim market value for their pets, leading to payouts as low as $50.
With the threat of liability, people involved in the pet industry would have more incentive to treat non-human companions with more care.
“But if there’s no consequences, then there’s no motivation to be careful,” she said.
She also argued against the claim that the change would upend the system, saying: “If we had that attitude, then nothing would ever progress.”
“The law cannot be allowed to remain stagnate,” Marino said. “It’s time to expand these legal concepts and doctrines to include animals, and this is a very small step.”
Judge Malsow, who will rule at a later date, demurred that if dogs can be legally considered family, “then doesn’t that lead to the cat, and then to the rabbit? And then the parrot? And then to every living creature? How about the hamster?”
Yes, Marino said.
For Deblase, there’s no question that Duke was family.
“The laws for animals are f–ked & I will continue saying this; the fact that dogs are seen as property when my dog was literally standing at the altar when my wife and I were married is insanity,” Deblase wrote on his Instagram. “That dog showed us more unwavering love and compassion than any human I’ve ever met.”
“There will be #justiceforduke.”
