Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Northport, Suffolk County (Ralph Crafa, J.), rendered October 11, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of allowing a dog to run loose or at large.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with violating Village of Northport Code § 93-3 (C) in that he allowed his dog to "run at large and unleashed." The complainant, a neighbor in defendant's townhouse/condominium development, alleged that defendant's unleashed dog attacked him by, inter alia, running at him, growling, barking, and snapping its teeth. Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of the offense charged. The instant appeal by defendant ensued.

Village of Northport Code § 93-2 defines "at large" as "[o]ff the premises of the owner and not under the control of the owner or a member of his immediate family either by leash, cord, chain or otherwise." At trial, the complainant testified that he was in the street when defendant's dog attacked him, and that defendant quickly got the dog off him. However, the complainant also testified that the dog never touched him, and he never clearly indicated where the dog was located when it "attacked" him. Defendant testified that his dog ran down his driveway towards the complainant, but he stopped his dog, which was on an electronic leash, before it ever left the driveway.

Viewing the foregoing evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v [*2]Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that said evidence was legally insufficient to establish defendant's guilt, since no rational trier of fact could have deemed all the elements of the offense established beyond a reasonable doubt. The People failed to prove that defendant "allow[ed], suffer[ed] or permit[ted] [his] dog to run loose or be at large upon the premises of another without the knowledge or consent of the owner . . . or upon any public highway, sidewalk or other public place in the Village
of Northport" (Village of Northport Code § 93-3 [C]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, the accusatory instrument dismissed and the fine, if paid, remitted.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and LaCava, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 30, 2009