PEOPLE v. STONE BARNS CENTER (2024)

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

As limited by its brief, Stone Barns Center (SBC) appeals from so much of an order of the Justice Court (Robert J. Ponzini, J.), following a dangerous dog hearing held pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law § 123, as, upon declaring two of SBC's dogs, Owyn and Luna, to be dangerous, found that they had caused “serious physical injury” (Agriculture and Markets Law §§ 108 [29]; 123 [3] [a]) to the person they attacked and ordered that both dogs be humanely euthanized. SBC does not contest the Justice Court's determination that it was established by clear and convincing evidence that Owyn and Luna are “dangerous dog[s]” under Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 (2) (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 [24] [a]). Rather, on appeal, SBC challenges the Justice Court's finding that the dogs had caused “serious physical injury,” as defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (29), to the person they attacked and the court's decision to order that the dogs be humanely euthanized.

Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 (3) (a) allows a court to order the humane euthanasia of a dangerous dog if the dog has “attacked a person causing serious physical injury.” Agriculture and Markets Law § 108 (29) defines “serious physical injury” as “physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious or protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” At the dangerous dog hearing, the person who was attacked by the dogs testified that, as a result of the attack, she sustained: puncture and bite wounds to the exterior portion of her right hand requiring that the muscle be pushed back in and six to seven stitches to close the wound, which caused scarring; two to three broken ribs; bleeding in her brain; and a heart attack. In view of the foregoing, we find that the record supports the Justice Court's determination that the dogs caused “serious physical injury” to the person they attacked. Moreover, under the circumstances presented, which included the fact that, during the same incident, the dogs killed the victim's daughter's dog, we find that the Justice Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in opting to order the humane euthanasia of Owyn and Luna as the most appropriate remedy among the options set forth in Agriculture and Markets Law § 123 (2) and (3) (see People v South, 56 Misc 3d 136[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50995[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]; Town of Southampton v Ciuzio, 19 Misc 3d 140[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50911[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]).

Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

GARGUILO, P.J., GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ and CONWAY, JJ., concur.