Penny’s Pit Bull Attack: A Wake-Up Call About Dangerous Dogs

On May 1, 2025, on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, a Chihuahua named Penny was being walked on a leash when two pit bulls suddenly attacked her. The pit bulls were restrained by thick chains, yet they were able to lock onto Penny and nearly kill her. A crowd of bystanders rushed to help, pounding on the pit bulls and yelling at their owners. (Watch the video of the incident: NewsNation Segment About Mauling of Penny, with Interview of Kenneth M. Phillips.)

NYPD reacted to Penny’s mauling by denying that the pit bull owners committed a crime, and lamenting that the police could take no action at all against the pit bulls themselves because the matter was “civil.” In effect, they were saying it is not a crime to let your dog attack another dog—even in public, even if people are injured trying to stop it.

Their position was entirely incorrect. New York’s dangerous dog law and animal cruelty law, if applied, would impose fair constraints on the pit bulls, adequate penalties on their owners, and send the right message to the owners of other aggressive dogs. (Watch the video by Kenneth M. Phillips, Do We Need Penny’s Law? The Truth About Dangerous Dog Laws in NY.)

Every city, every county, and every state needs to take notice of Penny’s case. Both the mauling and law enforcement’s insipid response were unfortunately typical throughout the USA. Too many dogs are harmed by aggressive canines, and too little is done to prevent it.

Perhaps most important, however, is the fact that humans also need protection from dog-on-dog attacks.

Dogs That Attack Other Dogs Also Injure People

Penny’s video struck a nerve because attacks on pets—and the people trying to protect them—are becoming more frequent, more violent, and more visible. Two examples that made the news in the first few months of 2025 include the pit bull attack that killed a service dog named “Chosen” in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the attacks in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, by a single pit bull that injured 3 dogs and 3 people. (See Westwood woman speaks out after her service dog was killed by a neighbor’s pit bull, WLWT5 (April 17, 2025), and Owner surrenders pit bull that attacked 3 dogs, 3 people, Local10.com (April 1, 2025).)

These attacks are often a joint venture between the aggressive dog and its irresponsible owner. A study by Direct Line Pet Insurance in the UK found that nearly a third of pet owners (29 per cent) whose dog was attacked or involved in a fight said it was because the owner of the other dog could not control it. A quarter (26 per cent) said it happened because the other dog was off the lead and provoked their dog. One in six (15 per cent) said the other dog had an aggressive reputation. (Direct Line Group, Dog fights – 64,000 canines die in 12 months (accessed May 15, 2025).)

Merritt Clifton has conducted the only broad study of dog-on-dog attacks in the Americas, and he found that one-third of all disfiguring dog attacks on people occur when a person is trying to stop a dog from attacking another animal—most often a smaller dog. This data confirms that dog-on-dog aggression frequently leads to serious human injury. (Merritt Clifton, Pit bull attacks on other pets lead to a third of disfiguring human bite injuries, Animals 24-7 (May 22, 2014).)

Dog-on-dog attacks must be taken far more seriously because so many people are injured while trying to get their pet out of harm’s way, break up the fight, or pull the dogs apart. It’s a natural human response to intervene, and it frequently results in the owner of the victim dog getting bitten or mauled.

Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips estimates that one-third of the nearly 1,000 dog attack cases he has handled involved bite wounds to dog owners under those circumstances. (Kenneth M. Phillips, A Propensity to Attack Other Dogs Means a Dog Is Dangerous to People.)

Therefore, it is imperative that we focus attention on the 3 universal, most important issues that were raised by Penny’s terrible mauling.

Lack of enforcement of existing laws

The first issue is the failure to enforce dangerous dog laws and anti-cruelty laws.

The pit bulls that mauled Penny had previously killed another dog. The Health Commissioner then ordered the owner of the pit bulls—allegedly Joseph Columbo—to muzzle the dogs in public and to walk them one at a time. He ignored both orders. He also failed to carry a break stick (used to pry open a dog’s jaws), made no effort to stop the mauling, and even interfered with the rescuers. Instead of helping, his female companion videoed the attack on her cellphone while he argued with rescuers. Then they fled the scene.

All of this violated two New York criminal laws:

  • NYC Health Code: Disobeying a Health Commissioner’s order can result in up to 1 year in jail.
  • Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 (Animal Cruelty): Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to “permit any animal to be unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed.” This is a strict liability crime—no excuses. The penalty is up to 1 year in jail.

There are at least two more New York laws that apply to Penny’s case. The state’s very good “dangerous dog law,” Agriculture & Markets Law § 123, says:

  • Any witness can report a dangerous dog directly to a judge.
  • If the judge finds probable cause, the dog must be seized immediately.
  • A full hearing must be held within five days.
  • Penalties can include euthanasia, confinement, and civil fines.

Additionally, the state has Agriculture & Markets Law § 117 that requires officers to seize any dog that poses an immediate threat.

After NYPD reacted to Penny’s attack by shrugging it off, New York lawmakers did the predictable: they promised to enact a new law to be called Penny’s Law. (Phyllis M. Daugherty, NYC Pit Bull Attack Sparks ‘Penny’s Law’—But Is It Necessary?, CityWatch (May 12, 2025).)

As aptly put by Merritt Clifton, the author of Animals 24/7:

“The time-honored and traditional political approach to public outrage over a crime,  unfortunately,  is to promise legislation named after the victim,  which will usually only replicate existing legislation,  generate favorable publicity for the politicians involved,  and then stall somewhere in the legislative process,  but even if passed,  will usually then be unenforced and forgotten about until a similar incident raises a similar hue-and-cry.” (Merritt Clifton, Dog Bite lawyer Kenneth Phillips to NY: Enforce the laws already on the books, Animals 24-7 (May 13, 2025).)

As they rushed to grab headlines about a future Penny’s Law, they ignored the fact that there were 1,300 complaints about dogs running at large in New York City in the first 4 months of 2025. These complaints underscored the real problem: not the lack of a law, but the lack of enforcement of existing laws.

This is hardly a New York phenomenon. For example: “The dangerous dog law that exists in Ohio today was drafted by an out-of-state animal rights PAC, whose mission was 2-fold: repeal the state law declaring pit bulls “vicious” and make it nearly impossible for prosecutors to pursue felony charges after a vicious attack.” (Colleen Lynn, Ohio’s Weak Dangerous Dog Laws: 4-Part Investigation by Collaboration of News Organizations, DogsBite.org (March 24, 2025).)

Another example: the August 2022 fatal mauling of mail carrier Pam Rock in Florida was met by “the dismissive attitude by Putnam County’s local government and animal control agencies. . . . [The animal control department’s records showed] many opportunities to justifiably impound these Pit Bull-mix dogs, which were not receiving adequate food or care. There was justification to euthanize them as dangerous animals. There were prior attacks on humans and even on a car, which indicated their aggression. The entire report is filled with the excuses of not receiving documents or electronic transmissions.” (Phyllis M. Daugherty, Pit Bull Attack that Killed USPS Mail Carrier Spurs Tougher Dangerous Dog Laws in Florida – or Does It?, CityWatch (April 28, 2025).)

For communities that don’t already have adequate “dangerous dog laws,” see the Model Dog Bite Laws on dogbitelaw.com. But what most cities need is not a new law, but law enforcement.

In the case of Penny, the allegations against the pit bulls owners are that they were aware their pit bulls recently killed another person’s dog but did not muzzle them, they did little or nothing to stop the attack on Penny when it was happening, and they left the scene without identifying themselves or giving information about their dogs’ rabies vaccinations. These aspects of their conduct were not even addressed in the May 2025 draft of Penny’s Law.

Prevention is Possible Without a New Law

The tragedy that befell Penny could have been prevented without a new law.

  • Better law enforcement: As mentioned above, NYPD initially told Penny’s walker that they “couldn’t do anything.” That was false. Under the state law, police are required to take reports of dangerous dogs and advise victims of their rights. NYPD eventually took a report under public pressure but, instead of bringing it to a judge under the state law, chose to send it to the city health department. The Health Commissioner is known for routinely abandoning cases after issuing orders to dog owners who violate the law. Ultimately, this is nothing other than deliberate law unenforcement.
  • More animal control officers: The city needs to increase staffing so they can follow up on prior incidents and enforce existing laws. It can be safely assumed that no city in the USA has enough animal control officers to keep the streets safe.
  • Better public cooperation: With more than 1,300 calls per year about off-leash dogs in NYC, good dog owners must step up and follow the rules to reduce the burden on the system. Again, this is true everywhere.
  • Voluntary muzzle use: Owners of high-risk breeds should be encouraged to muzzle their dogs in public. This applies especially to pit bull owners, who should try to be ambassadors for the breed, given the public’s strong dislike of this type of dog.
  • Greater awareness when small dogs are around pit bulls: Pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs. Only a very small percentage of pit bulls attack people or pets. Nevertheless, 90% of domestic animals killed by dogs are killed by pit bulls. The owners of small dogs need to keep them away from pit bulls.

Lack of acknowledgement of the dangers posed by pit bulls

The second key issue raised by the attack on Penny is, as mentioned above, the generalized failure to acknowledge the dangers that are posed by pit bulls. The owners of other dogs (especially little dogs like Penny) have to be realistic about what they are up against.

The video of Penny’s mauling begins just moments before the violence erupts. We see a busy Manhattan street corner, crowded with pedestrians and diners at a sidewalk café. On the narrow sidewalk, the owners of two pit bulls are walking toward the camera. Just behind them, moving in the same direction, are the handlers of Penny, a small Chihuahua. Penny’s owner, Lauren Claus, was not present.

As Penny’s handlers try to pass the pit bulls, Penny comes within inches of the gray one. It turns its head, sees the smaller dog, and instantly lunges. The second pit bull joins in. Chaos ensues.

Penny’s handlers either did not see the pit bulls, or they failed to appreciate the danger. Pit bulls were bred for centuries to fight and kill other dogs. That history cannot be ignored, especially in public spaces where dogs are in close quarters.

In our desire to be accommodating, kind, progressive, or liberal, we must stay tuned to reality. As some have said, “reality bites.” It is a mistake to ignore the fact that any dog can bite. One can love dogs and avoid risk at the same time.

The mistake made by Penny’s handlers was tragic. The mauling, perhaps even the killing, of Penny was foreseeable. Her handlers had the last clear chance to avoid it, but instead, they walked directly into danger when they tried to overtake the pit bulls. Their cherished companion paid the price.

If they failed to observe what was directly in front of them—including two powerful dogs—they were negligent. That negligence contributed to the outcome. If, on the other hand, they saw the pit bulls and still chose to move ahead with their small dog so close, the same conclusion follows. Ignoring a known danger is just as negligent as failing to see it.

Well-established law supports this analysis. As stated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 290:

“[F]or the purpose of determining whether the actor should recognize that his conduct involves a risk, he is required to know … the qualities and habits of human beings and animals ….”

That includes the well-documented traits of pit bulls—traits that courts, insurers, and legislatures have acknowledged time and again. This type of dog is dangerous. Failing to recognize this has consequences, and in Penny’s case, the result was devastating.

Lack of restrictions on pit bulls and other risky breeds

The elephant in the room is the failure of our cities, counties, and states to restrict pit bulls and other risky breeds, or eliminate them entirely.

It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill. That is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog. It is a reality that must not be ignored.

In 2024, 71 Americans were killed by dogs, and 55 of those dogs were pit bulls. Pit bulls amount to 6% of all dogs in the USA, but are responsible for 77% of the human fatalities. (Merritt Clifton, Record dog attack death count in 2024; Detroit pit bull owner sent to jail, Animals 24-7 (January 5, 2025).)

Dogs annually kill about 9,300 other dogs, and approximately 90% of the killer dogs are pit bulls. (Merritt Clifton, Pit bull attacks on other pets lead to a third of disfiguring human bite injuries, Animals 24-7 (January 3, 2025).)

Making the situation worse, we have seen disturbing changes in the temperament of pit bulls. Over time, indiscriminate breeding practices have resulted in the mixed-breed pit bulls commonly found in urban environments. Bred without regard for temperament or behavior, these mixed breeds, sometimes referred to as “bully mixes” or “city pit bulls,” lack the controlled aggression that is, paradoxically, prized in fighting circles.

Thus, when pit bulls get an urge to kill a person, they kill or maul their owners and the owners’ family members or visiting babies more than half the time. (Kenneth M. Phillips, Pit Bulls: Facts and Figures.)

Are all pit bulls alike in their behavior? No, but every pit bull presents an unacceptable degree of risk to humans and our companion animals. Thus, their presence requires us to consider the safest way to go about our business, taking our dog for a walk, visiting the dog park, getting out of an elevator on our floor, making a delivery, sitting in an airplane, and on and on. Americans have been attacked by pit bulls in all such places.

There is no more effective way to deal with the risks presented by pit bulls than to reduce their number by not adopting or breeding them. Public shelters, rescues, and breeders should aim to reduce the total number of pit bulls in the nation. Shelters and rescues should cease rehoming pit bulls or at least curtail doing so. Breeders should stop breeding them; indeed, one-third of all pit bulls in the USA have to be euthanized every year because of over-breeding. (Watch the video by Kenneth M. Phillips, Advice About Breeding Your Pit Bull.)

Potential adopters also should be informed about the risks of owning a pit bull, especially the danger to the owner and the owner’s family. (See “Tell the Family It’s a Pit Bull!“) To help adopters choose safer dogs, every state should enact a Truth in Pet Adoption Law. This is a type of law that ensures transparency about a dog’s history, helping adopters make informed decisions. (See “Truth in Pet Adoption Law Compels Disclosure of Dog Bites.”)

Model Laws – What communities need to protect people and their pets

Penny’s incident opens the door to a broader conversation: Are our current dangerous dog laws really enough?

Every state, city, and county needs to at least consider having the following 4 laws:

Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips has published Model Dog Bite Laws covering these topics. They should be enacted by any city, county, or state that doesn’t have similar, effective laws. In jurisdictions that have existing laws, they should be updated after considering what’s in the Model Laws.

Phillips’ Model Dog Bite Laws would have accomplished the following in Penny’s case:

  • The Model Dangerous Dog Law would have defined the pit bulls as “dangerous dogs” because they previously “attacked a person or domestic animal without justification causing serious bodily injury or death” (sec. 1).
  • Because they were “dangerous dogs,” they could have been immediately impounded. Section 3(c) provides, “Any dangerous dog may be impounded by the animal control authority.”
  • The animal control authorities could then conduct a hearing to declare the dogs to officially be declared “dangerous dogs.” (Sec. 3(e).)
  • If declared to be “dangerous dogs,” the owners would have the right to have them euthanized or returned with conditions of confinement. (id.)
  • The owners also would be ordered to pay”fair and adequate compensation” to Penny’s owners. (Id.)

Additionally, there would be additional, severe penalties under the Model Irresponsible Dog Owner Law if a third person or pet were injured by these pit bulls. Those penalties could include taking the dogs away from the dog owners, prohibiting them from owning other dogs for several years, and payment of a fine. See the Irresponsible Dog Owner Law.

Penny’s Law Has Major Loopholes

The May 2025 draft of Penny’s Law submitted to the New York State Legislature prior to this writing (on June 1, 2025) creates a new crime called “reckless handling of a dog.” It would make it a crime to “allow” a dog to attack another dog. But the current draft falls short in key areas:

  • Failure to stop an attack is not criminalized. Once the attack begins, the law does not make it a crime to fail to stop it. That is a big loophole.
  • It isn’t clear what it would take to “allow” a dog to attack. The law doesn’t define “allow.” The standard for culpability — legal blame — is unclear. “Allow” could imply intentional, reckless, negligent, or even strict liability. Without specifying the mental state, people may be criminally charged even when they had no knowledge of their dog’s tendencies, took reasonable steps to restrain the dog, or were not even present at the time of the attack.
  • There is no requirement to give rabies info after an attack. While Penny’s Law says you must report an attack, it doesn’t require immediately providing rabies vaccination records. This matters because about one-third of dog-on-dog attacks result in bites to the owner, and rabies status is critical for human health decisions.
  • A victim’s right to compensation is unfairly limited. The current draft says a handler has to reimburse the victim for only “medical or veterinary expenses.” That is a step backwards, especially after Flanders v. Goodfellow. Human dog attack victims also suffer from other losses such as PTSD, loss of income, disfigurement, disability, broken glasses, and torn clothing. And when a dog is injured or killed, there are similar effects on its owners. The public does not want dogs to be treated as mere property, their owners’ compensation limited to the cost of getting a new dog or merely reimbursing the veterinary expenses.

Using the word “allow” is such a major flaw that court probably would refuse to enforce Penny’s Law. Vague laws can violate the Due Process Clause by failing to give ordinary people clear notice of what conduct is criminal. If someone doesn’t know what it means to “allow” an attack, they can’t reasonably be expected to comply with the law. And police or prosecutors might interpret “allow” too broadly, leading to unfair charges against responsible dog owners whose leashes broke, and the prosecution of people who were not even there when the attack occurred.

A Better, Simpler Approach for Penny’s Law

If a new law is considered necessary, the current version of Penny’s Law should be simplified to avoid confusion and unintended consequences. For example, it would be appropriate to make it a crime for an owner to negligently allow their dog to harm a person after the dog has shown vicious behavior or been trained to attack.

This new criminal statute would have just three simple elements:

  • The dog was trained or known to be aggressive.
  • The owner acted negligently in allowing the encounter.
  • The dog caused harm.

Penny’s Law thus would modify current state law by criminalizing the failure to stop an attack and the failure to give rabies information. It also would add a new penal statute that would be simple and clear, letting people know exactly what conduct will expose them to jail time. These modest but significant provisions would protect people and animals without casting an unfair net over responsible dog owners.

Links

Related Articles and Videos By or Featuring Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips

Self-Help Books for Dog Owners by Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips

Press ESC key to close search

Follow Dog Bite Law!

Recent Posts

Use Our AI

For quick answers and links to the relevant pages of dogbitelaw.com, use The Dog Bite Law Assistant