New York Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Carole Dantuono (Female, 39 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

David J. Raimondo;
David J. Raimondo & Associates;
Lake Grove,
NY,
for
Carole Dantuono

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Peter Borchelt;

Animal Evaluations & Testing;
Brooklyn,
NY called by
David J. Raimondo

Defendant(s):

John Holohan, 

Judith Holohan

Defense Attorney(s):

Eugene L. Daneri;
Ahmuty Demers & McManus;
Albertson,
NY,
for
John Holohan, Judith Holohan

Defendant Expert(s):

Barbara Pezzanite;
Animal Evaluations & Testing;
Lindenhurst,
NY called by
Eugene L. Daneri

Insurer(s):

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. for both defendants

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Carole Dantuono, 39, a salesperson, visited a Suffolk County residence that was occupied by John Holohan and Judith Holohan. While Dantuono was standing in the home’s foyer, she was confronted by the Holohans’ dog, a 4-year-old Boston terrier. Dantuono claimed that the dog jumped upon her and bit her. She sustained injuries of her face and a finger. Dantuono sued the Holohans. She alleged that the Holohans negligently failed to control or restrain their dog. In a prior proceeding, another court determined that the Holohans’ dog was dangerous and had to be permanently confined to the Holohans’ home. In the instant matter, Dantuono’s counsel moved to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, to preclude any argument regarding the issue of whether the dog was vicious. The motion was denied. Dantuono claimed that the Holohans’ dog bit her face and that he continued to attack her after she had kicked him. Dantuono’s counsel contended that the Holohans knew that their dog was aggressive and vicious. He claimed that the dog had been caged, sequestered and kept on leashes throughout its life. He argued that the Holohans failed to ensure that their home was safe for visitors. Dantuono’s animal-behavior expert visited the Holohans’ home and performed an assessment of the dog’s level of socialization. During the exercise, the dog was confined to the Holohans’ kitchen; a gate blocking the only doorway. The expert extended a hand toward the dog, and the dog repeatedly jumped toward the expert while barking and growling. The dog also jumped against the gate. The expert claimed that the dog attempted to bite his hand, and he concluded that the dog exhibited aggressive and vicious tendencies. He also concluded that the dog had never been socialized toward strangers. Defense counsel challenged the findings of Dantuono’s expert. He contended that the expert, in holding a hand above the dog, prompted it to jump toward him. He also claimed that the expert did not attempt to interact with the dog and that the expert’s examination lasted merely three minutes. The defense’s animal-behavior expert also visited the Holohans’ home and performed an assessment of the dog’s level of socialization. During the 45-minute-long assessment, the dog was allowed to run freely through the residence. The expert claimed that the dog ran to her and interacted in a non-aggressive manner. She concluded that the dog was well-socialized and that it did not exhibit vicious propensities. Defense counsel presented a total of eight friends and relatives of the Holohans. The witnesses claimed that they were not aware of a prior act of aggression involving the dog, that the dog was friendly and playful, and that the dog possessed a good demeanor. The Holohans acknowledged that the dog was confined within their home, but they claimed that its confinement was intended to minimize the effect of poor urinary habits. They also acknowledged that the dog occasionally jumped on people, but they claimed that the dog never did so in a threatening way. They further claimed that the dog did not bite Dantuono. However, Judge Joseph Farneti ruled that a prior proceeding had established that Dantuono was bitten. Defense counsel was permitted to introduce evidence that the dog had been purchased to provide companionship for the Holohans’ son, whose brother had died in a motor-vehicle accident. Testimony also revealed that another brother had died as a result of leukemia.

The trial was bifurcated. Damages were not before the court. Dantuono claimed that the Holohans’ dog bit and scratched her face. She sustained a laceration of her chin. The wound penetrated to a facial muscle and it caused damage of a nerve. Dantuono also sustained a sprain of a finger. Dantuono presented to John T. Mather Memorial Hospital, in the village of Port Jefferson. She immediately underwent surgical reconstruction of her chin. After some 10 months had passed, she underwent surgical neurolysis of a nerve of her face. Dantuono claimed that she suffers permanent numbness of the right side of her lower lip. She claimed that she experiences uncontrolled drooling. She further claimed that her condition inhibits her relations with her husband and children. Dantuono sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. Her husband presented a derivative claim.

The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that the Holohans’ dog did not exhibit vicious propensities on the day of the accident.

Judge:

Joseph Farneti

Demand:

$150,000 (total, by both plaintiffs, prior to the trial)

Offer:

$20,000 (total, for both plaintiffs)

Trial Length:

5
 days

Trial Deliberations:

1.3
 hours

Jury Vote:

6-0

Jury Composition:

2 male/ 4 female

Post Trial:

Plaintiff’s counsel has expressed an intention to move to set aside the verdict. He has also expressed that he will appeal two pretrial decisions.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s and defense counsel. Additional information was gleaned from court documents.