Living Arrangement Turned Risky
On March 23, 2023, Nialine Saintilma lived in an efficiency unit at 1241 NW 102nd Street in Miami. Emmanuel and Marie Cine owned the property and rented different parts of it. Alphonse Williams, another tenant, lived there with a dog, despite a strict no-pet policy in place. The Cines knew about the dog but didn’t enforce the rule. The shared front yard had no signs warning about a dog or danger.
Williams routinely allowed his dog to roam freely. The landlords kept control of the property and could enforce the lease terms. Despite this authority, they never intervened or warned other tenants about the animal’s behavior.
An Afternoon Walk Turns Violent
That day, Saintilma stepped out to grab some items from a friend. As she entered the yard, Williams’ dog attacked her. The dog bit her foot first, then lunged at her face. Neither Williams nor the landlords intervened. There were no barriers, restraints, or warnings to prevent the attack.
Despite knowing the dog was aggressive, none of the defendants took any action to remove or contain it. The landlords allowed the dog to stay, in clear violation of the lease and in disregard of known risks.
A Vicious Attack and Lasting Harm
The dog’s bites caused permanent injuries. Saintilma suffered wounds to her foot and face. The attack left lasting scars and disfigurement. She endured pain, emotional trauma, and limited physical ability. Her daily routine and quality of life changed dramatically after the incident.
The injuries weren’t temporary. They required medical treatment and would continue to impact her future. The psychological and physical toll remained severe and ongoing.
A Plea for Justice and Compensation
Saintilma sought compensation for her suffering. She asked the court to award damages for pain, disability, disfigurement, and emotional distress. Her claim included loss of earnings, future medical expenses, and diminished life enjoyment. She also requested reimbursement for legal costs, attorney’s fees, and interest.
Her legal team demanded a full range of damages—general, special, consequential, and nominal. They asked the court to grant any other relief deemed fair and just.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Nialine Saintilma
Counsel for Plaintiff: Faudlin Pierre | Mckinley B. Augustin
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Thomas John Zaydon
Defendant(s): Alphonse Williams | Emmanuel Cine | Marie Cine
Counsel for Defendants: Andrew J. Rader | Jonathan Michael Galler | Todd Stone | James Jean-Francois
Three Legal Theories, Three Defendants
Strict Liability (Count I – Against Williams):
Saintilma sued under Florida’s dog bite statute. She argued that Williams, as the dog’s owner, was automatically liable for the attack.
Negligence (Count II – Against Williams):
She claimed Williams failed to restrain his dog and protect others. She accused him of knowingly exposing others to danger.
Negligence (Count III – Against the Cines):
She alleged that the landlords neglected their duty to protect tenants. They knew about the dog and violated their own pet ban, allowing unsafe conditions to persist.
Saintilma requested a jury trial to resolve all disputed issues.
Defense
Emmanuel Cine denied most of the allegations in Nialine Saintilma’s complaint. He either lacked sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the claims or rejected them outright. He argued that many claims were directed at co-defendant Alphonse Williams and therefore did not apply to him. He also insisted that nothing he admitted supported the plaintiff’s right to recover damages.
In his affirmative defenses, Cine claimed the complaint failed to state a valid legal claim. He argued that other parties, including the Plaintiff herself and co-defendant Williams, either caused or contributed to the incident. Cine asserted he lacked knowledge of the dog’s vicious nature and had no control over it. He also raised defenses under Florida law, including comparative negligence, lack of lawful presence, failure to mitigate damages, collateral source rules, and potential fault by unidentified third parties.
Jury Verdict
The jury found Defendant Alphonse Williams liable under Florida’s strict liability statute (§767.04) as the dog owner and awarded Plaintiff Nialine Saintilma $80,000 in damages. Additionally, the jury awarded $10,000 for pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, both past and future, bringing the total verdict in favor of the Plaintiff to $90,000. The verdict was rendered on May 23, 2025.