Dogs are family, says NY judge in dachshund death case

What was once was man’s best friend is now man’s closest family — in New York, at least.

Dogs are so much more than just possessions, a Brooklyn judge just ruled, in allowing the heartbroken family of an adorable, Tuxedo-wearing dachschund named Duke to sue for emotional distress after the tiny pup was cruelly mowed down by a driver.

Nan DeBlase, who was walking her son Trevor DeBlase’s pooch on July 4, 2023, is entitled to damages because she was tormented by witnessing the helpless 4-year-old get crushed, Supreme Court Judge Aaron Maslow said.

“It is reasonable for a jury to conclude that witnessing Duke being crushed led to emotional distress that goes beyond that which is generally felt by the loss of mere property,” Maslow wrote in his bombshell decision Tuesday.

“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.”

Nearly exactly two years ago, Nan was walking with Duke in Mill Basin when an out-of-control driver blew through a stop sign, slamming into the leashed wiener dog as Nan jumped out of harm’s way.

 “It was very traumatic, extremely,” Nan, 66, told The Post Wednesday. “I mean, I was hysterical when it happened.”

Duke’s untimely death — just a few months after he walked down the aisle at Trevor’s wedding, dressed in a sharp tux — was all captured on video and shows how Nan even patiently waited for an earlier car to drive through before crossing the street.

“A few hours ago a man blew a stop sign, almost hit my mother and hit my poor sweet Duke and killed him,” Deblase wrote on his Instagram page on July 4, 2023. 

“I can’t even believe I am typing these words right now,” the post reads. “I loved this dog more than life itself and things will never be the same without him.”

Challenging an outdated law — and winning

The DeBlases sued a month later, challenging an “antiquated” law which only allowed Trevor to sue driver Mitchell Hill for the market value of his treasured pooch, plus medical costs — roughly $2,000.

And the mother-son duo won — mostly — with Maslow granting Nan’s claim to emotional distress because she was there and Duke was leashed, but denying it for Trevor as he was not at the scene.

“Since Nan DeBlase was tethered to Duke at the time of the accident,” Maslow’s decision read, “it is proper for her to recover damages for emotional distress resulting from witnessing Duke’s death and fear for her own safety, all due to Defendant’s negligent, indeed reckless, operation of his vehicle.”

While the decision greatly expands the legal definition of family tree, the judge made his ruling a “carveout” that applies to people walking a leashed dog, only to watch a negligent driver crush and kill their beloved dog, and nearly kill them too.

“I took a step to get out of the way of this monster, who not only ran a stop sign, but was making a turn,” Nan recalled. “If you don’t see the stop sign, how do you see people? It was like he was driving with his eyes closed, and yet was able to make a left turn — I can’t even understand it.”

She called Maslow’s ruling “long overdue” in New York. Dog owners in Tennessee are similarly allowed to sue for up to $5,000 of non-economic damages if a pet is killed or sustains serious injury from another — but the act must occur on the victim’s property.

“These things — they should have changed a long time ago — and not just in New York, but in all the states,” she said.

While Trevor now has another dachshund — Cooper — Duke’s death still affects him and Nan “horribly.” 

“They miss Duke so much,” Nan told The Post. “They have a little shrine in their house dedicated to him.”

“You can’t fill that spot,” Nan said, adding that she also got her own dog, a poodle mix named Cashew, “but you can try.”

How the “zone of danger” came into play

The DeBlase family’s argument for negligent emotional distress over Duke’s death comes from a legal concept known as “zone of danger,” which limits such claims to relatives who were in harm’s way when their loved one was killed.

Hill and his lawyer, who the judge said “provided no opposing evidence” in the hearings, did not reply to requests for comment. The judge found him in the wrong on various fronts: he ran the stop sign, didn’t use his turn single and did not check before turning at the intersection.

In a move that showed Maslow took the dog-human family relationship seriously, he asked for outside groups to file papers in support of DeBlase or Hill — and surprisingly, many big-name animal groups sided with the deadly driver.

A ruling in favor of Duke and his family, according to groups like the the New York State Veterinary Medical Society and the American Kennel Club, would create out-of-control liabilities for the pet industry, and raise costs across the board.

But Maslow’s ruling was crafted almost specifically to avoid this “parade of horrors’ argument,” which he called “overstated.”

Maslow wrote “it stands to reason that companion animals, like Duke, could also be recognized, as a matter of common sense, as immediate family,” citing changing societal norms.

He added that the ruling would be limited to dogs, because of his “leashed” stipulation and that “very few people walk tethered to their cats, rabbits, or other non-dog pets on a leash,” Maslow wrote.

Other animal rights groups who filed papers supporting Duke’s family cheered the ruling, with one group thanking Maslow for his “wisdom and courage.”

“Animals are not ‘things’; they are living, breathing, sentient beings,” Nora Marino from the Legal Action Network for Animals told The Post. “Courts must realize that and issue decisions accordingly. This decision was an enormous step in the right direction.”

“It serves the interest of justice to recognize that Duke was not a legal ‘thing,’” said Christopher Berry from the Nonhuman Rights Project. “He was a member of the family.”

Trevor declined to comment through his attorney.

“Our clients are grateful for the court’s decision, which will enable them to obtain justice for their damages,” said the family’s attorney, Gregory T. Cerchione. 

‘Animals are people’ cases have been heard in New York before

The case will surely face legal review — as “changing societal norms” Maslow cites have found their way to the state’s highest court before.

Judge Rowan Wilson is one of two jurists who filed a dissenting opinion with the famous Happy the Elephant case, where the state’s top court rejected an effort to sue for human rights claims on behalf of a not-so-happy caged pachyderm at the Bronx Zoo back in 2022.

The next year, Wilson was confirmed as chief judge for the state’s highest court.  

For Nan, who will have to testify at the trial to confirm their damages, she sees reminders of the trauma every day. 

The intersection where Duke was slaughtered is just steps from her home.

“It’s so difficult for me,” she says of watching people still plowing through the stop signs. 

“Keep your eyes open — stop being distracted,” Nan said. “You gotta pay attention, it’s very sad.”