Establishes a civil remedy for the protection of animals denied proper care by creating a special proceeding in the supreme court that will hold owners and caretakers liable if such animals under their care are mistreated.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A2555A
SPONSOR: McDonald TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to estab-
lishing a civil remedy for the protection of companion animals denied
proper care
PURPOSE:
This bill would provide a civil process by which humane law enforcement
agencies can implement a non-criminal process to address acts or omis-
sions that result in a companion animal suffering unnecessary psycholog-
ical or physical injury or pain, or failing to receive food, water,
shelter, or the veterinary or behavioral care necessary to preserve the
physical health and mental well-being of an animal.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section one of the bill amends the agriculture and markets law to estab-
lish a new Article 26-D entitled, "Civil Remedy for the Protection of
Companion Animals." This article is comprised of eight sections to
effectuate its purpose, as follows:
§ 440 provides the declaration of purpose for the establishment of this
article, which is to provide a civil means by which a companion animal
found to be mistreated or not properly cared for may be made the subject
of a court order to provide care issued to its owner or caretaker or
removed from its present custody by court order to ensure proper care.
§ 441 provides definitions for specific terms in the statute.
§ 442 provides that state supreme courts shall have jurisdiction over
these civil proceedings.
§ 443 describes the process by which written notice is given to the
owner or caretaker of a mistreated companion animal.
§ 444 describes the process by which an authorized agent may petition
the court for an ex-parte emergency care and inspection order should the
owner or caretaker continually fail to provide sustained care after
written notice was given. This section then describes when the court
shall issue the order and what the order shall require. Upon the issu-
ance of such order, this section requires the court to schedule an
Animal Care Hearing within a specified time period. The court must also
provide timely notice to the owner or caretaker of both the order and
the hearing.
§ 445 provides for the Animal Care Hearing process, whereby the court
determines whether the owner or caretaker of a companion animal being
denied sustained proper care is fit to continue owning such animal. If
the court determines that such owner or caretaker is unable or unwilling
to provide sustained care, then the court shall order the animal's imme-
diate forfeiture and enjoin the owner or caretaker from further
possession, custody, or ownership for a time determined by the court to
be reasonable. The order of forfeiture shall identify a supersedeas bond
amount that the owner or caretaker must pay based on the reasonable cost
to care for the companion animal.
§ 446 establishes the owners right to appeal and the process that must
be followed in that regard.
§ 447 relates to how the new Article 26-D interacts with other laws.
Section two of the bill provides the effective date.
EXISTING LAW:
New York law only provides a criminal process for adjudicating animal
cruelty cases. There is currently no civil remedy to effectively protect
companion animals from mistreatment.
JUSTIFICATION:
This bill would create a civil remedy to ensure that unfit owners are
properly caring for their companion animals or, if necessary, remove
such animals from their custody to prevent further mistreatment. A civil
process for addressing animal mistreatment is critical given the signif-
icant challenges that come with enforcing criminal animal cruelty stat-
utes.
For one thing, the animal itself often serves as evidence of the alleged
crime, but unlike all other forms of evidence, pets are also personal
property and are living, breathing, sentient creatures. They cannot be
placed in secure storage unattended, or in an evidence locker until a
criminal case is adjudicated. Even when removed from severely neglectful
or abusive situations, the quality of life for a seized pet can diminish
significantly in a relatively short period of time without a permanent
living situation. At the same time, shelters have no way of knowing when
a criminal case will be resolved; depending upon numerous factors beyond
their control, a conviction or dismissal can take months, if not years.
During this same period, costs borne by impounding organizations
increase proportionally and quickly become prohibitive. Animals
entrusted to their care require food, water, veterinary care, and behav-
ioral, enrichment and volunteer services that must be continuously
available to the shelter's entire population.
Because towns and cities often contract with not-for-profit entities for
sheltering services, these costs directly impact them as well. In one
recent case, the City of Watervliet incurred $30,000 in sheltering costs
in a case that may have been able to be dispensed with more quickly if a
civil remedy was already in place.
As a result of such circumstances, some shelters may decline to harbor
pets seized during criminal cruelty investigations, especially if their
shelter is already stretched thin due to high intake rates and
veterinary/staff shortages. This in turn impacts the ability for law
enforcement agencies to effectively investigate animal cruelty
complaints; when an officer responds to a complaint, suspects cruelty
but has nowhere to bring an animal at risk, it can drastically compli-
cate the manner in which an investigation can proceed, if at all.
In addition, law enforcement and humane agencies have long expressed
frustration with using criminal law to address specific types of neglect
and cruelty situations like animal hoarding. Yet, it is their only
option. To cite one recent example from the ASPCA in NYC, a routine
welfare check at a small home in Queens alerted police to horrific
conditions inside, where a search warrant was obtained to remove over 70
animals from an aging mother and her daughter, who was subsequently
arrested and charged with animal cruelty. A petition was filed with the
court for the owners to post a security bond for the care of their
animals at ASPCA's animal hospital, in an attempt to get the court to
order forfeiture of the animals. This case took more than a year to
litigate, resulted in over $420,000 in medical care and sheltering
costs, and because the organization was unable to adopt the pets into
loving homes, many languished despite high-quality professional care.
Mental health issues for the mother and daughter also contributed to
court delays which resulted in even longer legal hold times for the
animals. This family needed help - not the cost of defending themselves
in criminal court or the stigma of a criminal conviction; unfortunately,
under current law a search warrant and criminal charges (twice) was the
only option.
In a 2021 example, Hudson Valley Humane Society in Rockland County was
called to a home where they found two dogs chained to an outbuilding.
The shelter eventually gained access to the home and seized 24 adult
dogs. The owner, a man in his early 60's, was a classic animal hoarder,
using multiple veterinarians to hide how many animals he actually owned.
The case went on for 18 months until finally the court recognized the
overwhelming cost HVHS had absorbed by awarding the shelter custody of
the animals. Nonetheless, the shelter housed these dogs for 18 months,
meaning other homeless companion animals couldn't be sheltered due to
space constraints. The total cost of care in the case was $75,000 in
veterinary bills and close to $260,000 in daily care at a rate of
$20/day (which is actually below average).
In 2023, Finger Lakes SPCA took in 13 dogs, mostly Cane Corsos (seven
adults and six puppies) from an animal cruelty case. The seizure was
done by the County Sheriff with the shelter's assistance. The owner
refused to relinquish ownership of the animals and the court process was
"a nightmare," according to the shelter's Executive Director. The owner
managed to keep delaying the case, and the dogs were housed at the shel-
ter for 11 months. The cost of care and damage because of overcrowding
is estimated at between $75,000 and $100,000. The county was able to
assist with only about 20% of this financial burden.
While nothing in this measure would prevent the pursuit of criminal
charges for any situation regarding suspected animal cruelty when
warranted, the establishment of a civil process option - whereby a court
can render a decision, based on the evidence, regarding an animal
owner's ability to care for a companion animal - is good for law
enforcement, good for shelters, good for social justice and of course
good for companion animals. This procedure is not a new concept; it is
used successfully in other states where, when appropriate, it provides a
sound and fair means to wrest animals from harm's way without having to
charge the owner with misdemeanor or felony-level crimes.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2024: S8543 (Gianaris) died in Agriculture / A9215 (McDonald) died in
agriculture
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:.
To be determined.
LOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after it
shall have become law.
