Men’s best friend, dogs, got a legal upgrade thanks to Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Aaron Maslow. He ruled that a dog can be seen as part of someone’s immediate family, not just property.
This began with Duke, a dachshund, who was killed in 2023 when a driver hit him during a walk. He was leashed to Nan DeBlase, his owner’s mom. She was almost hit, too, putting her in what the court calls the “zone of danger.”
Because Nan was so close to the crash, she could sue for emotional distress over Duke’s death. Before this, courts only allowed that kind of lawsuit for human relatives.
Trevor, Duke’s actual owner, took to Instagram to share the devastating news. He wasn’t there when it happened, so the court wouldn’t let him sue for emotional harm. He could only sue the driver for vet bills and the dog’s value.
View this post on Instagram
New York still sees dogs as property in most legal settings. That means there is no wide-open door yet for everyone to claim grief over a pet’s death. But this ruling stretched that idea, at least for traffic incidents where someone is nearly hurt, too.
Judge Maslow looked at how society treats dogs today, including in divorces and estate plans. People now fight for pet custody and set up pet trusts.
To avoid setting off a flood of lawsuits, the judge narrowed his ruling. This legal shift only applies to dogs killed in traffic while leashed to someone who was nearly hit.
Groups like the Nonhuman Rights Project praised the court's move. They say it is a step toward recognizing dogs and other animals as more than property. For them, it adds fuel to efforts to win more legal rights for animals in other courts.
However, not everyone is cheering. Groups like the American Kennel Club warned that the decision could bring new legal risks. They worry drivers could now face lawsuits for emotional distress anytime a pet is hit. The court’s limits try to keep that in check.
Trevdeblase / IG / The ruling hinged on something called the “zone of danger” rule. It lets people sue if they were almost physically harmed and saw a loved one get hurt.
This case pushed the meaning of “loved one” to include dogs, under some conditions.
Although courts have heard animal cases before, this is the first time in New York that a judge has linked “immediate family” with a pet.
Even with this new ruling, proving emotional distress is not easy. The person must have been right there, nearly hurt, and tied to the pet. It doesn’t open the door for every pet owner, just those in very specific situations.