(Google Maps)
A resident of a West 79th Street building – where a dog named Sam has allegedly attacked numerous people – recently filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for injuries he claims to have suffered when bitten by the dog in September.
Advertisement
Joseph Venafro, a TV producer and Sam’s latest alleged victim, filed the 25-page suit in New York Supreme Court against the dog’s owners, Inna Fayenson and Alan Katz, and the building’s management company. It seeks unspecified damages not only for the injuries Mr. Venafro claims, but also for alleged slander, misrepresentation and concealment of facts, and for the purported failure of both building management and Sam’s owners to protect the public from a dog known to be dangerous. He is being represented by Jeffrey K. Levine, a personal injury and civil rights lawyer.
The lawsuit states that on September 8, Mr. Venafro, now 48, was cornered in the elevator by Sam, a then-four-year-old mixed-breed dog who was leashed and with Ms. Fayenson. Sam lunged at Mr. Venafro, according to the lawsuit, and bit him in the abdomen, right near a scar he had from surgery for Crohn’s disease. He told the New York Post he suffered seven puncture wounds, requiring medical attention at an urgent care facility. The attack was allegedly so severe, Mr. Venafro called the police, who investigated and filed a report. He recently told The New York Times Ms. Fayenson neither helped him or apologized.
Mr. Katz, Sam’s other owner, appeared to downplay the attack last fall, telling the New York Post “He needed a BandAid and he needed antibiotics. If it were [a big deal], he would have gotten admitted. No sutures were necessary. They cleaned the wound and sent him home.”
“Defendant Katz was quoted in the (NewYork Post) article that anything less than hospital admission was not a big deal,” states the lawsuit.
Far from minor, in fact, the attack left Mr. Venafro with serious injuries, according to the lawsuit.
Advertisement
“Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries and damages as a consequence of the attack by animal,” it states.
According to the lawsuit, Mr. Venafro later learned Sam had attacked numerous other victims over the past couple of years, including a doorman and delivery person, and that despite clear evidence that Sam was aggressive, no action had been taken by the management staff or the dog’s owners to protect the public and prevent further attacks.
The lawsuit describes dozens of incidents in which Sam has bitten, displayed aggression, lunged at, growled at, injured or frightened neighbors and others. After one attack in the building two years ago, Ms. Fayenson allegedly asked the neighbor not to tell the landlord about it and even gave her a box of cookies from Levain Bakery.
In the days after the elevator attack, the lawsuit states that Ms. Fayenson attempted to discredit Mr. Venafro, telling other residents “nothing happened.”
“In the weeks and months following said attack by animal, defendant Fayenson affirmatively spoke with other premises residents and chose to downplay animal’s attack on plaintiff by repeatedly stating ‘nothing happened’ to plaintiff,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant Fayenson acted with …. reckless disregard for the truth, and/or with malicious intent, both presumed and actual, in knowingly uttering such statements to third parties and which were designed to negatively impact plaintiff’s credibility and reputation when considered against defendant Fayenson, a Harvard educated lawyer. These premises neighbors, having heard the first hand account of defendant Fayenson’s stating ‘nothing happened’ to plaintiff, secondary to animal’s attack on September 8, 2023, resulted in neighbors subsequent conversations with plaintiff where plaintiff felt the need to defend his reputation by waiving his medical confidentiality and showing the physical injuries to his abdominal region.”
The alleged attempt by Ms. Fayenson to dismiss the attack as “nothing” is the reason why the lawsuit also seeks damages for defamation and slander.
Advertisement
“It invalidates my client to say nothing happened,” Mr. Levine told ILTUWS. “It’s absolutely outrageous.”
So far the landlord hasn’t required the dog to be removed from the property and, according to Mr. Levine, that may be because the owners say Sam is an emotional support animal, which the lawsuit claims is not true.
“Aware that animal was a dangerous dog defendant Fayenson used her knowledge as a lawyer in an attempt to avoid animal’s removal from her residence by falsely downplaying the seriousness of animal’s attack upon plaintiff and falsely and egregiously claiming animal was a support dog which defendant Fayenson knew would afford animal behavioral latitude,” the lawsuit states.
Mr. Levine told ILTUWS that he has no evidence that Sam, whom he calls Cujo in reference to a Stephen King horror novel, is or is not an emotional support animal. But even if he is, Mr. Levine said, the safety of other residents and the public supersedes that.
“When I told the landlord the dog needs to go, the answer was ‘we have a legal team (on it),’” Mr. Levine said, adding that if there is a legal team on it, he has seen nothing to suggest anything tangible is being done. “It’s not just the owners of Cujo who are responsible here. The management is doing nothing.”
Mr. Levine lives on the UWS himself and said that since news stories came out last fall about Sam, he has heard from numerous Upper West Siders who have been attacked or threatened by the dog.
The dog’s owners and Seeken 79 Realty could not be reached for comment. A woman who responded to a request for comment at Rotner Management Corp. simply said “I can’t release any information at this time.”
This only highlights the difference between service dogs and emotional support dogs. Service dogs are highly trained and disciplined and any dog who shows signs of aggression flunks out of the training.
Emotional support dogs are every other dog. Seriously, does anyone get a dog even if they don’t feel a need for the added comfort they provide? The abuse of the emotional support concept should end, post haste.
That dog is a potential killer. They should force the dog out and the tenant. It’s not fair to anyone else in the building and is a big danger for the neighborhood
They will put the dog down. Perhaps a better solution would be to get proper training or medical care for the dogs distress. The solution should be better than all the hostility and legal measures taken to date. Why can’t people work together to resolve the situation instead of fighting and being angry. It all sounds toxic and mean. They want to move a family and a dog because of what this man claims. Perhaps there are other incidents, but no one else is saying they want to remove a family dog, and move a family from their home except one man.
Come on people, you can do better.
Why should anyone have to “work with” the owner of a dog that attacks them?
The onus is on the owner, 100%. Period.
Because you are neighbors and it doesn’t have to destroy a family a digs life and be litigated in court. Life us hard enough. If people were reasonable and tried to stop placing blame but instead though of a reasonable solution, wouldn’t that work best for everyone involved. This must be toxic for everyone. Can’t someone step up to help resolve this in a way that is kind, reasonable and not about retaliation. It’s a dog.
Even if the dog is an emotional support animal, it should not be unleashed anywhere outside of the owners’ apartment. Why did the owners assume it was wise not to have their dog under their complete control in a tiny space like an elevator? This advice might be too late, but keep Sam harnessed from now on and don’t discuss the incident with anyone, or poor Sam will be out of your lives forever.
The article says the dog was leashed when it bit the neighbor’s abdomen. Leashing does no good if the owner does not use the leash to restrain the dog.
The dog should be muzzled at all times in all common areas of the building.
I misread the article. You’re right. A leash is useless if the owners allow the dog to corner a fellow passenger in the elevator. A muzzle seems fair and would solve the problem.
Muzzle would be a great idea and a reasonable request.
If you are to believe UWSers, EVERY SINGLE DOG on the UWS is some sort of “support” animal. They use this appellation selfishly so that they can take their dog anywhere and everywhere and, if challenged, simply say what they THINK are the magic words: “Service animal.”
But as someone else pointed out, there is a difference between a bona fide “service animal” and an “emotional support animal.” And the latter are NOT covered under the ADA law, so restaurant and store owners are within their legal rights to reject them if they don’t want them on the premises.
As well, it is a myth that restaurant and store owners are not allowed to ask the animal’s owner any questions. Even with bona fide service animals, the restaurant or store owner can ask (i) whether the animal is a service animal, and (ii) what task(s) is it trained to perform. Yes, that second question is completely legal, and the animal’s owner must respond. So, e.g., if a dog is trained to “predict” an epileptic attack, the owner is required to say that – despite the fact that the restaurant or store owner is not permitted to ask direct questions about the animal owner’s medical issues.
One way you can tell owners of bona fide service animals from the incredible number of selfishly lying dog owners is that they actually KNOW the law, and do not bridle or become argumentative or combative when asked. The liars will always become defensive and THINK they know the law (which most don’t), and maybe even threaten to sue if the animal is not permitted on premises. (BTW, VERY FEW such lawsuits are successful.)
As for emotional support animals, it is also a myth that they get no training. They are supposed to be trained just like regular service animals: not to bark or bite, to be docile and controllable at all times, etc. (I know: I worked as a fundraiser for the country’s largest service animal training organization). Do owners of emotional support animals really think that untrained animals would be permitted to serve as emotional support animals in hospitals (particularly around children) and other public facilities that may use such animals?
I am 100% certain that the animal described in this article is not ANY kind of service animal, whether bona fide or emotional support (at least formally; i.e., with training). The owner makes this claim simply so they can get away with having and taking their dog anywhere they want. And this is the PERFECT story of why lying about the status of an animal is so dangerous.