Brooklyn Judge Redefines Pets’ Legal Status After Tragic Dachshund Death

New York, N.Y. – In a groundbreaking decision that could reshape how the law views companion animals, a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge has ruled that dogs can be considered “immediate family” under New York law, allowing owners to seek emotional distress damages when their pets are wrongfully killed.

The ruling, handed down on June 17, 2025, by Justice Aaron Maslow, stems from a heartbreaking 2023 incident involving a four-year-old dachshund named Duke, who was fatally struck by a reckless driver while on a walk in Mill Basin. This unprecedented decision marks a significant shift in recognizing the deep emotional bonds between pet owners and their animals, challenging the long-standing legal view of pets as mere property.

A Tragic Loss Sparks Legal Battle

On July 4, 2023, Nan DeBlase, 66, was walking her son Trevor DeBlase’s beloved dachshund, Duke, on a leash at the intersection of East 64th Street and Strickland Avenue in Brooklyn. Surveillance footage captured the devastating moment when a driver, Mitchell Hill, allegedly ran a stop sign, failed to use a turn signal, and made a left turn without checking the intersection, striking Duke and narrowly missing Nan.

The four-year-old dachshund, who had recently charmed guests at Trevor’s wedding in a green tuxedo, was killed instantly. Nan, physically tethered to Duke via the leash, described the experience as “extremely traumatic,” telling the New York Post, “I was hysterical when it happened.”

The DeBlase family, devastated by the loss, filed a lawsuit against Hill a month later, challenging what their attorneys called an “antiquated” New York law that treated pets as personal property, limiting damages to the animal’s market value—roughly $2,000 in Duke’s case. Nan and Trevor sought compensation for emotional distress, arguing that Duke was not just property but a cherished family member. Justice Maslow’s ruling allows their case to proceed to trial, with Nan eligible to seek damages under the zone of danger doctrine, which typically applies to those who witness harm to a close family member while in harm’s way themselves.

Redefining “Immediate Family”

In his 19-page decision, Justice Maslow rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, which argued that dogs cannot be considered immediate family. “This Court fails to see why a beloved companion pet could not be considered ‘immediate family’ in the context of the zone of danger doctrine under the fact pattern presented by plaintiffs,” Maslow wrote. He emphasized that Duke’s deep connection to the DeBlase family warranted this legal recognition, particularly since Nan was physically and emotionally tied to Duke at the time of the incident.

Maslow’s ruling is narrowly tailored, applying only to cases where a dog is on a leash and harmed in the presence of someone with a close emotional bond. This limitation excludes Trevor from seeking emotional distress damages, as he was not present at the scene, but it opens the door for Nan to pursue compensation for the trauma of witnessing Duke’s death and her own near miss.

The judge noted that societal norms have evolved, citing New York laws like a 2021 statute requiring courts to consider a pet’s best interests in divorce proceedings and provisions for pet trusts since 1996. He also referenced a 2016 survey by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, which found that 75% of hotels are pet-friendly, reflecting the growing recognition of pets as family members.

A Shift in Legal Perspective

The ruling has been hailed as a significant step by animal rights advocates, who see it as part of a broader transformation in how the law views companion animals. Christopher Berry, executive director of the Nonhuman Rights Project, which filed two amicus briefs in support of the DeBlase family, praised the decision.

“Too often, courts reflexively apply outdated precedents that treat animals as mere property, even when those precedents no longer reflect common sense,” Berry said. “It serves the interest of justice to recognize that Duke was not a legal ‘thing.’ He was a member of the family.”

However, not all reactions were positive. Organizations like the New York State Veterinary Medical Society and the American Kennel Club opposed the ruling, arguing it could create significant liabilities for the pet industry and drive up costs, such as insurance premiums. They expressed concerns that expanding legal protections for pets could overburden courts and lead to unintended economic consequences. Despite these objections, Justice Maslow found the defendant’s lack of opposing evidence—Hill and his attorney provided none during hearings—strengthened the case for moving forward to trial.

Broader Implications and Public Response

The decision has sparked widespread discussion about the evolving role of pets in society. On X, posts reflected strong public support for recognizing dogs as family, with users like @TheGussReport calling it a “YES, YES and YES!” moment and @1035KTU highlighting Duke’s tragic story. However, some expressed concerns about the ruling’s scope.

A user on Reddit’s r/Conservative community warned that treating pets as family could lead to increased regulations, such as mandatory training or insurance, potentially raising the cost of pet ownership. Others, like Paula Schasberger, a dog owner interviewed by ABC7 New York, supported compensation for negligence but worried about “second-order effects” of elevating pets’ legal status.

The ruling aligns New York with states like Tennessee, where pet owners can seek up to $5,000 in non-economic damages for a pet’s death or serious injury, though such laws often have restrictions, like requiring the incident to occur on the owner’s property. Nan called Maslow’s decision “long overdue,” emphasizing that such changes should extend nationwide. She continues to grapple with the trauma, as the intersection where Duke died is just steps from her home.

Looking Ahead: A Trial for Justice

As the DeBlase case heads to trial, Nan will need to testify to prove the extent of her emotional distress. The ruling sets a precedent that could influence future cases, potentially expanding legal protections for pet owners across New York. For Trevor, who now cares for another dachshund named Cooper, the decision offers bittersweet solace.

“Knowing that something good has come out of this tragedy brings me some kind of solace,” he shared on Instagram, alongside a photo of Duke in his signature green tux.

This landmark ruling underscores the evolving bond between humans and their pets, reflecting a society increasingly unwilling to view companion animals as mere property. As Justice Maslow noted, the law must adapt to align with modern values, ensuring that families like the DeBlases can seek justice for their loved ones—whether human or canine.

Summary for audio file

In a landmark ruling, a Brooklyn judge declared dogs “immediate family” under New York law, allowing emotional distress damages when pets are wrongfully killed. The decision, prompted by the 2023 death of a dachshund named Duke, struck by a reckless driver, marks a shift from treating pets as property. Nan DeBlase, who witnessed the tragedy, can now seek compensation, reflecting evolving societal views on the human-pet bond.

#DogsAsFamily #NewYorkLaw #PetRights #DachshundJustice #BrooklynRuling

Tags: dogs, immediate family, New York, Brooklyn, dachshund, emotional distress,
pet rights, Justice Aaron Maslow, zone of danger, animal law