A kennel-bound dog is getting another chance at life thanks to a New York state appellate court.

The appellate ruling earlier this month vacated an order to euthanize a mix-breed pooch named Brady, arguing a lower court had "misapprehended and misapplied" state law.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, which ordered the case be remitted to a justice court in a town near Rochester, ruled that permanent confinement and euthanasia were not the court's only options.

Court filings say Brady bit a toddler during a Thanksgiving gathering, causing face lacerations and stitches for the young girl.

An appellate brief filed in support of Brady's owner says the dog had never shown any aggression toward children and the toddler was holding a ball close to her face when she was bit. It argued the canine was trying to play with the ball and said the circumstances suggest the incident was an accident as opposed to an attack

The incident took place during a Thanksgiving gathering with a "surplus of stimuli" at the residence, between balls, a crowd of people, a new dog and small children, the brief argued. Brady also did not act aggressively before or after the bite, according to the document.

The attorney pushing to save Brady's life is Matthew Albert, a Buffalo-based animal law and civil rights attorney. 

"It's an injustice," he said. "The law wasn't followed."

The appellate court ordered the case be remitted to the justice court of the town of Ogden. But Albert says he's concerned because Brady's case, and with it the dog's fate, will go back to the same court that ordered euthanasia.

If a future ruling does allow Brady to live, Albert said the dog would live at an animal sanctuary that he runs with other people. He said Brady's owner also agrees with the arrangement.

The appellate court found that a lower court "repeatedly misstated the applicable law."

The lower court said it only had two options—permanent confinement or euthanasia—if it found Brady to be a dangerous dog, according to the ruling. The court also said it could order euthanasia if it found a dog to be dangerous, the ruling read.

"Those statements are subtly different, and both are in error," the appellate ruling reads. "As discussed above, mere dangerousness does not empower the court to order euthanasia or permanent confinement, which may be imposed only upon the establishment of an aggravating circumstance."

The appellate court argued that permanent confinement and euthanasia are not the only options for the court, even if there is an "aggravating circumstance." It said a municipal court can decide the animal should be spayed or neutered or undergo microchipping, according to the ruling.

The lower court ordered euthanasia without finding out whether there was an aggravating circumstance and did not consider other options "as a result of its mistaken understanding of the applicable law," according to the ruling.

READ MORE: