A New York court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Claudette Scala against homeowners Ainsley A. Lopez and Lauren Costabile-Lopez over a dog bite incident. The ruling, made by Judge Anthony R. Molé of the New York Supreme Court in Putnam County, concluded that the homeowners were not aware of any vicious tendencies of their dog, which led to the bite incident that occurred in April 2023.
The case, Scala v. Lopez, was significant because it addressed the legal standards surrounding dog bites and the responsibilities of pet owners. The court's decision is particularly relevant for dog owners and those who may be injured by dogs, as it clarifies the criteria under which a dog owner can be held liable for injuries caused by their pet.
Background
Claudette Scala filed her lawsuit against Ainsley A. Lopez and Lauren Costabile-Lopez on June 15, 2023, after she was bitten by their dog while walking past their home in Carmel, New York. According to Scala, the Lopez family’s nine-year-old son was walking the dog on a leash when it became aggressive and bit her on the calf. Scala alleged that she suffered a puncture wound from the bite.
The defendants responded to the lawsuit by asserting that they had no prior knowledge of their dog exhibiting any vicious behavior. They claimed that the dog had never bitten anyone before and that they had no reason to believe it would act aggressively. The case progressed through the court system, with the defendants initially denied summary judgment in May 2025 due to incomplete discovery regarding the dog's medical records.
The Ruling
On January 9, 2026, after reviewing the completed discovery, Judge Molé granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, effectively dismissing Scala's complaint. The court found that the Lopezes had established they were not aware of any vicious propensities of their dog. The judge stated, "The evidence established that their dog had never bitten any person or animal prior to the underlying incident."
Judge Molé noted that the burden of proof lay with the defendants to demonstrate that they had no knowledge of any dangerous behavior exhibited by their dog. The court found that the Lopezes provided sufficient evidence, including deposition testimonies, to support their claims. The judge ruled, "The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment, as a matter of law, dismissing so much of the complaint seeking to hold them strictly liable for plaintiff's alleged injuries."
Impact
This ruling has important implications for dog owners in New York. It clarifies that owners can only be held liable for dog bites if they had prior knowledge of their dog’s vicious propensities. The court emphasized that normal canine behavior does not constitute vicious propensities, and the absence of prior incidents is critical in establishing a lack of knowledge.
The decision also reflects a broader legal trend in New York, where recent rulings have allowed for both strict liability and common-law negligence claims in dog bite cases. However, this case reinforces the idea that without clear evidence of prior aggressive behavior, dog owners may not be held liable for injuries caused by their pets.
What's Next
The court's decision dismisses Scala's complaint with prejudice, meaning she cannot refile the same claims against the Lopezes. It is currently unclear if Scala plans to appeal the ruling. There are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court opinion.