The popular theory of every dog is entitled to one bite has no support in NYS. Perrotta v.

Picciano, 186 App Div 781, 175 NYS 15. Keeping of a guard dog as a dog may give rise to an inference that the owner had knowledge of the dogs vicious propensities. Collier v. Zambito; Parente v. Chavez. No authority for the proposition that judicial notice should be taken of the propensity of any particular breed of dog. De Vaul v. Carvigo, Inc., 138 AD2d 669, 526 NYS2d 483 (German Shepherd). Evidence of the inherently vicious propensity of a particular breed of dog is inadmissible. Sers ex rel. Sers v. Manasia (German Shepherd).

Relying upon Alia v. Fiorina in Petrone v. Fernandez (also Roberts v. Joller, and Rose v. Heaton) the court held that the violation of a leash law, which is merely some evidence of negligence, is irrelevant and does not support a recovery in cases involving domestic-animal-related injuries.

Jury will determine if the animal has vicious propensities. Court may dismiss if there is insufficient evidence to create a triable issue regarding the animals vicious propensities. Defendant seeking summary judgment has the initial burden to establish that defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the dogs vicious propensities. Nature, behavior, and acts of animal, and the attack itself, may be taken into consideration. That a dog previously had bitten or attacked does not establish vicious propensities or knowledge by the owner. Plaintiff must show that the owner knew of the vicious propensities, or that the owner should have known because the animals vicious tendencies existed for a sufficient period of time for a reasonable person to discover them. Plaintiff does not have to prove actual knowledge on defendants part. The known propensity must be for the act that caused the injury.

Owning and keeping a German Shepherd dog in an urban area requires the highest standards to be employed in the protection of the innocent public. Machacado v. City of New
York.