A New York court has made a significant ruling regarding the liability of Amazon.com Services LLC in a case involving a dog attack. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on September 24, 2026, that Amazon is not liable for common-law indemnification claims brought against it by the owners of the dogs involved in the incident. This ruling affects how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly concerning the responsibilities of delivery companies and property owners.
The case, Castracane v. Kasmier (Docket CV-25-1166), stems from an incident where Paul Castracane, an independent contractor for Amazon, was attacked by two dogs while delivering a package. Castracane alleged that he was following Amazon's delivery instructions when he was attacked by the dogs owned by Alexius and Michael Kasmier, who live at a property owned by CK Properties, LLC. The court's ruling clarifies the responsibilities of each party involved in the case.
The dispute began when Castracane filed a lawsuit seeking damages for the injuries he sustained during the attack. He claimed that the dogs were not properly confined and that there were no warning signs to alert him of their presence. Castracane's complaint included negligence claims against both Amazon and the Kasmiers, as well as CK Properties. The Kasmiers and CK Properties then filed cross-claims against Amazon for contribution and common-law indemnification, arguing that Amazon's negligence in providing delivery instructions contributed to the incident.
The case reached the Appellate Division after Amazon sought to dismiss the cross-claims against it. Initially, the Supreme Court granted Amazon's motion to dismiss the cross-claims for contribution but denied the request regarding common-law indemnification. Amazon appealed this decision, leading to the recent ruling.
The court ruled that the Supreme Court erred in denying Amazon's motion to dismiss the cross-claims for common-law indemnification. The judges noted, "the complaint alleged that the Kasmiers and CK Properties are liable for their own independent acts of negligence because they failed to confine or otherwise prevent vicious dogs from attacking plaintiff." This indicates that the liability of the Kasmiers and CK Properties arises from their own negligence, not from Amazon's actions.
The ruling emphasized that common-law indemnification is an equitable remedy available only to parties who are without fault. Since the Kasmiers and CK Properties were found to have committed their own independent acts of negligence, they could not claim common-law indemnification from Amazon. The judges stated, "the right to common-law indemnification does not arise merely by alleging that another tortfeasor is more culpable or even wholly responsible for the plaintiff's injuries." Instead, the court highlighted that the proper remedy for the Kasmiers and CK Properties would be to establish Amazon's negligence at trial, which could lead to a reduction of any verdict against them based on Amazon's share of fault.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the limits of liability for companies like Amazon when independent contractors are involved in incidents that occur during the course of their work. The decision also reinforces the principle that property owners have a duty to control their pets and ensure the safety of visitors on their property.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved in this case. It sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar disputes in the future, particularly in cases involving dog attacks and delivery services. Property owners may need to take extra precautions to prevent such incidents, while delivery companies may need to review their policies regarding delivery instructions and the safety of their contractors.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether the Kasmiers and CK Properties will appeal this decision. The court's ruling has clarified their responsibilities and the limits of Amazon's liability in this case. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.