Brooklyn Judge Rules Dogs Are More Than Property in Negligence Emotional Distress Claims

A Brooklyn judge has determined that dogs are not merely property but can be considered sentient beings capable of emotional distress. This decision opens the door for pet owners to seek damages in cases of negligence that result in emotional harm to their beloved companions. The implications of this ruling are significant, not only for pet owners but also for the legal landscape surrounding animal rights.

A Turning Point in New York Tort Law

In DeBlase v. Hill (2025 NY Slip Op 25156), the Kings County Supreme Court took a compassionate step forward in recognizing the emotional value of pets. The court held that a pet owner may pursue a negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) claim after witnessing the injury or death of their leashed pet. This was previously unheard of under New York law.

What Happened?

Nan DeBlase was walking her son's dog, Duke, on a leash when a driver ran a stop sign, turned without signaling, and struck Duke, killing him instantly. Ms. DeBlase narrowly avoided being hit herself. For years, New York law has treated pets strictly as personal property, limiting recovery to market value. Emotional distress damages were off the table, even when owners suffered deep emotional trauma.

The Court’s Decision

The court not only granted summary judgment on liability but also allowed Ms. DeBlase’s emotional distress claim to move forward.

The key distinction was that Ms. DeBlase was physically tethered to Duke when the collision occurred, placing her squarely in the “zone of danger.” This direct connection, and her proximity to the negligent act, made her emotional injury compensable. Her son, who owned Duke but was not present, could not recover under the same theory.

Why This Matters?

This decision carves out a narrow but significant exception to the long-standing rule that emotional damages cannot be recovered for harm to pets.

Moving forward, claims may succeed where:

• The owner is present and physically connected to the pet;

• The defendant’s negligence endangers both owner and animal; and

• The emotional distress is immediate and direct.

  
  

While the court stopped short of reclassifying pets as “family members,” it reflects the judiciary’s growing recognition that our pets hold unique emotional value.