Ursidae are the bears. Crocodylia includes the alligators, the crocodiles, the caimans, and the gharial. Yes, there is an exception when the "wild animal" has become a "companion animal," which makes one wonder about the sanity of the legislators who voted for this law with that exception (maybe they were just thinking of monkeys). But not to worry, ECL§11-0512 prohibits the possession, sale, barter, transfer, exchange and import of wild animals as pets, unless grandfathered in as stated above.

Goldfish and a non-farm horse have been found to be companion animals. People v. Garcia, 29 AD3d 255, 812 N.Y.S.2d 66 (1st Dept. 2006); People v. Lohnes, 112 AD3d 1148, 976 NYS2d 719 (3rd Dept. 2013). Farm animals are excluded from the definition of "companion animal".

Municipalities can, and many do, further restrict what animals can be possessed. For example, New York City's Health Code prohibits private possession of any species deemed wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous, or naturally inclined to do harm. There are over 200 animals on a list banned from private possession within city limits. Rochester prohibits the private possession of "wild animals" as pets, with wild animals includig, but not limited to: all venomous animals (except fish), antelope, bighorn sheep, gazelles, impalas, gnus, bison, buffalo, wildebeests, zebras, bats, bears, camelidae, canids, cervidae, crocadillians, elephants, falconiformes, felids, giraffidae, herpestidae, hippopotamuses, hyenas, komodo dragons, marsupials, ostriches, emus, rheas, primates, rhinoceros, snapping turtles, weasels, etc. There is no grandfather clause within the ordinance.

Cruelty to Animals

To report animal cruelty, contact your local county Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“SPCA”) or other humane enforcement agency or contact your local police department. The agency you call must have police powers to investigate, file a report, and arrest. Usually, each county has one agency that possesses these powers in addition to the police. In New York City, call 311 to report cruelty (or 911 for crimes in progress). Give your local humane officers as much information as possible including names, addresses, witnesses, dates, times and pictures, if possible.

Pay attention to when the law is specific as to "dog,' or "companion animal." These laws do not protect other animals even though they are under human control and confinement.

A shortcoming in the law is that it does not take into consideration "land support" for animals. Every animal has a need for space, and each species has a different requirement to roam, stretch, and be in nature. Perhaps this is not addressed at all in the law due to farming, and the often crowded condtions of factory farms. But the effect of not providing land support for one's animal is cruelty. Consider the fate of Tommy and Kiko, two chimpanzees "confined by their owners to small cages in a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area, respectively." The New York Court of Appeals did not grant them habeas corpus relief in 2015, and found no change to revisit the issue in 2018. However, as Judge Fahey's concurrence pointed out, that denial was not a decision on the merits of the treatment of these animals.

Agriculture and Markets Law §351 defines “animal fighting”, as any fight between cocks or other birds, or between dogs, bulls, bears or any other animalor between any such animal and a person or persons, except in exhibitions such as rodeos. A person who engages in any of the following conduct is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to 4 years, or by a fine of up to $25,000.00 or both: (a) causes any animal to engage in animal fighting for amusement or gain; (b) trains any animal under circumstances evincing intent that such animal engage in animal fighting for amusement or gain; (c) breeds, sells or offers for sale any animal under circumstances evincing intent that such animal engage in animal fighting for amusement or gain; (d) permits any of the three previous activities to occur on premises under his control; or (e) owns, possesses or keeps any animal trained for fighting on premises where an exhibition of animal fighting is being conducted under circumstances evincing intent that such animal engage in animal fighting. Any person who owns, possesses or keeps any animal under circumstances evincing an intent that such animal engage in animal fighting is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 1 year, or a fine not to exceed $15,000.00 or both. The mere presence of a knowing spectator at the exhibition, even without having paid an admission fee or wager, is guilty of a violation punishable by a fine of up to $500.00. Any knowing spectator having paid an admission fee or having made a wager at any place where an exhibition of animal fighting is being conducted is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 1 year, or a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or both. However, any such knowing spectator convicted of either such conduct within the past five years, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to 1 year, or by a fine not to exceed $1000.00 or both.

Agriculture & Markets Law §353, Overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failure to provide proper sustenance, provides that:

A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to another, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink, or causes, procures or permits any animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink, or who willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Popularly known as “Buster’s Law,” Agriculture & Markets Law §353-a provides that "a person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, “aggravated cruelty” shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner. Aggravated cruelty to animals is a felony."

Agriculture & Markets Law §353-b, Appropriate Shelter for Dogs left Outdoors, requires that any person who owns or has custody or control of a dog that is left outdoors provide them with appropriate shelter. Appropriate shelter is currently defined as a structurally sound housing facility that is: insulated, has a waterproof roof; and is large enough to allow the dog to stand up, lie down, and turn around. The law also requires that there be a shaded area away from direct sunlight that is accessible to the dog at all times. Violations can trigger a series of escalating fines, which the court can reduce by an amount the owner or custodian proves he or she has spent to correct the deficiencies in the dog’s shelter.

Agriculture & Markets Law §353-d, Confinement of Companion Animals in Vehicles in Extreme Temperatures, provides that a person shall not confine a companion animal in a motor vehicle during extreme hot or cold temperatures without proper ventilation or other protection from the temperatures, when doing so places the companion animal in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury as a result of the exposure. If the owner can not be promptly located, the law authorizes police officers or peace officers, to take necessary steps to remove the animal(s) from the vehicle. If so removed, the officer must place written notice on or in the vehicle with the name of the officer and the department or agency where the animal(s) will be taken. Any such officer acting under this statute is protected by law from criminal or civil liability for their actions taken reasonably and in good faith when enforcing this law. Multiple violations of this law trigger escalating fines.

Bites & Other Harms From Animals

New York provides special protections for guide, hearing and service dogs. General Obligations Law §11-107 states that "[i]n addition to any other right of action or recovery otherwise available under law, a disabled person whose guide, hearing or service dog is injured due to the negligence of the owner of another dog in handling that other dog may recover damages from the owner or custodian of the non-guide, hearing or service dog that causes injury to the guide, hearing or service dog. Such damages may include, but are not limited to veterinarian fees, the cost of retraining or replacing the guide, hearing or service dog, and lost wages or damages due to loss of mobility incurred while retraining or replacement is taking place."

What are the other rights of action or recovery? AGM §123 covers dog bites and other dog-related injuries. Specifically, this statute states that the owner or custodian of a "dangerous dog" is liable for the medical costs of any injuries the dog causes to a person, to livestock, or to a companion animal like a disability service dog. The "owner" is a person who harbors or keeps the dog. AGM §108(15). A "dangerous dog" is one that: attacks and injures or kills a person, farm animal, or pet without justification, or behaves in a way that would make a reasonable person believe the dog poses a "serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death." A reasonable person is an ordinary person who uses average care, skill, and judgment. Serious physical injury means an injury that creates a substantial risk of death, or that causes death or serious or prolonged disfigurement, impairment of health, or the prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. Exceptions to the "dangerous dog" designation include law enforcement dogs who are carrying out their duties. AGM §108(24).

Pursuant to AGM §123, the complaint may be made by the witness or victim of a dog attack or a threatened attack, or the parent of a minor so attacked or threatened, to a dog control officer or a police officer. The complainant is to be instructed as to how to file a complaint with the municipal judge, but if there is reason to believe that the dog is a dangerous dog, the dog control officer or the police officer is to commence such action. The standard of proof is "clear and convincing." It permits the judge to have the dog immediately seized and confined, even spayed or neutered, if it presents a danger. Upon a finding that the dog is a "dangerous dog," the owner or custodian is strictly liable for the victim's medical and veterinary bills. If there is negligence on the part of the owner and the dog is determined to be dangerous, the owner may additionally be liable for a civil fine. If there is negligence on the part of the owner and the dog was previously determined to be a dangerous dog, and the dog has bit or seriously harmed someone, the owner may be additionally found guility of a misdemeanor and imposed fines, and the dog may be ordered euthanized or permanently confined.

A dog may also avoid being labeled a "dangerous dog" under New York law if any of the following are true:
-- the dog was protecting property from someone who was trespassing or committing a crime. (Learn more about homeowner liability for trespasser injuries.)
-- the dog was being tormented, abused, assaulted, or physically threatened by the person who was bitten or injured.
-- the dog acted in response to pain or injury, or was protecting its owner, home, or offspring.

Thus, under AGM §123, the rule is whether the dog is dangerous in that he injured someone or a farm or domesticated animal without justification. Under the common law, the rule is whether the owner knew or should have known (that is, have scienter) of the animal's "vicious propensities," and is not limited to dogs. People sometime refer to these rules as the "one bite" rule, because an owner who knows a dog has bitten or acted aggressively before must use reasonable care to protect others from the danger or face criminal penalties under AGM §123 or liability for all the injuries under the"common law," a/k/a case law

The goal of AGM §123 is to protect the public from dangerous dogs. The common law in New York establishes when an owner can be held civilly liable for his/her animal's harms to others. This is set forth by the New York Court of Appeals in Collier v. Zambito, 1 N.Y.3d 444, 807 N.E.2d 254, 775 N.Y.S.2d 205 (2004):

For at least 188 years (see e.g. Vrooman v Lawyer, 13 Johns 339 [1816]), the law of this state has been that the owner of a domestic animal who either knows or should have known of that animal's vicious propensities will be held liable for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities (see Hosmer v Carney, 228 NY 73, 75 [1920]; see also Restatement [Second] of Torts § 509). Vicious propensities include the "propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation" (Dickson v McCoy, 39 NY 400, 403 [1868]).

Knowledge of vicious propensities may of course be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice (see Benoit v Troy & Lansingburgh R.R. Co., 154 NY 223, 225 [1897]; see also 5A-5 Warren, Negligence in New York Courts §5.04 [6] [2003]). In addition, a triable issue of fact as to knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities might be raised—even in the absence of proof that the dog had actually bitten someone—by evidence that it had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth. Also potentially relevant is whether the owner chose to restrain the dog, and the manner in which the dog was restrained (see Hahnke v Friederich, 140 NY 224, 226 [1893]; see also Rider v White, 65 NY 54, 55-56 [1875]). The keeping of a dog as a guard dog may give rise to an inference that an owner had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensities (see Hahnke, 140 NY at 227).

In addition, an animal that behaves in a manner that would not necessarily be considered dangerous or ferocious, but nevertheless reflects a proclivity to act in a way that puts others at risk of harm, can be found to have vicious propensities—albeit only when such proclivity results in the injury giving rise to the lawsuit. But nothing in our case law suggests that the mere fact that a dog was kept enclosed or chained or that a dog previously barked at people is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it had vicious propensities.

The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that long-standing rule in Bard v. Jahnke, 6 N.Y.3d 592, 848 N.E.2d 463, 815 N.Y.S.2d 16 (2006). Sample Decisions

Then there are the wild animals and the reptiles (regardless of whether the reptiles qualify as companion animals). AGM §370, Protection of the public from attack by wild animals and reptiles, provides that:

Any person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being, who shall fail to exercise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal or reptile, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both. "Wild animal" within the meaning of this section, shall not include a dog or cat or other domestic animal.

Previous attacks upon a human being by such wild animal or reptile, or knowledge of the vicious propensities of such wild animal or reptile, on the part of the possessor or harborer thereof, shall not be required to be proven by the people upon a prosecution hereunder; and neither the fact that such wild animal or reptile has not previously attacked a human being, nor lack of knowledge of the vicious propensities of such wild animal or reptile on the part of the owner, possessor or harborer thereof shall constitute a defense to a prosecution hereunder.

For personal injury cases, including those arising from dog bites, the statute of limitations requires a case to be filed in court within three years of the date of injury. CPLR §214(5).

Abandonment of Animals

Under Agriculture & Markets Law §355, an owner or person having charge or custody of an animal, who abandons such animal, or leaves it to die in a street, road or public place, or who allows such animal, if it become disabled, to lie in a public street, road or public place more than three hours after he receives notice that it is left disabled, is guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, under Agriculture & Markets Law §331, an animal is deemed to be abandoned when it is placed in the custody of a veterinarian, veterinary hospital, boarding kennel owner or operator, stable owner or operator, or any other person for treatment, board, or care and is not removed at the end of the specified period for care or boarding. Notice must be mailed to the person who had placed such animal in his custody within ten days thereafter by means of registered mail to the last known address of such person. An animal may also be deemed abandoned if after having been placed in such custody for an unspecified period of time is not removed within twenty days after notice to remove the animal has been given to the person who placed the animal in such custody, by registered mail to the last known address of such person. The giving of notice shall be deemed a waiver of any lien on the animal for the treatment, board or care of the animal, but shall not relieve the owner of the animal removed of his contractual liability for such treatment, board or care furnished.

Under Agriculture & Markets Law §332, any person having in his care, custody, or control of any abandoned animal, as defined in §331 of this chapter, and after giving the required notice, may deliver the abandoned animal to any humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCA), having facilities for the care and eventual disposition of the animal. However, the person with whom the animal was abandoned must on the day of divesting himself of possession of the animal, notify the person who had placed such animal in his custody of the name and address of the animal society or pound to which the animal has been delivered, by registered mail to the last known address of the person intended to be so notified.

Pursuant to Agriculture & Markets Law §373, any police officer or agent who has found any lost, strayed, homeless or abandoned animal in any street, road or other public place, is authorized to take lawful possession of the animal. The officers also are authorized to lawfully take into their possession any unwanted animal from a person in possession or custody of such animal. If the animal has been confined or kept in a crowded or unhealthy condition or unhealthful or unsanitary surroundings or not properly cared for without necessary sustenance, food or drink for more than twelve consecutive hours, a police officer may lawfully take possession and custody of the animal with a proper warrant issued upon a showing of just and reasonable cause.

Agriculture & Markets Law §373(4) provides that when a person arrested while in charge of any animal or has an animal in their vehicle when arrested, the arresting officer may take charge of such animal and deliver it to the possession and custody of the police or sheriff of the county wherein such arrest was made. Any necessary expenses incurred in taking charge of the animal shall be charged to the person from whom the animal is taken. Furthermore, this section specifically provides that it does not restrict the rights and powers related to the seizure of unlicensed dogs and the disposition to be made of such animals, nor those rights derived from any other general or special law relating to the seizure of other taking of dogs or other animals. Obviously, any animal seized and impounded under violation of this statute, or §353-d or §375 of this article, has to be cared for by an “impounding organization” until the ultimate disposition of the criminal case. Under Agriculture & Markets Law §373 (6), the “impounding organization” may petition the court for the posting of a security bond, in an amount sufficient to secure payment for all reasonable expenses expected to be incurred in caring and providing for the animal pending disposition of the charges. For purposes of this section, an “impounding organization” shall mean the duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal shelter or any authorized agent thereof. “Reasonable expenses” shall include, but not be limited to, estimated medical care and boarding of the animal for at least thirty days taking into account all of the facts of the case. The ‘petition’ is filed with the court, and then served upon the defendant and the district attorney as well as any other interested person having a pecuniary interest in the animal. The ‘petition’ shall be brought at the time of arraignment. A hearing on the petition shall be held within ten days of filing. The Petitioner has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court has discretion to waive the posting if respondent shows good cause.

If the court orders the security, it must be posted with the clerk of the court, within five business days. The impounding organization may then draw from the security, the amount incurred.

If the person fails to post bond, the court can order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the impounding organization. The animal shall be made available for adoption or euthanized in accordance with the applicable provisions of this article.

The person who posted the security is entitled to a refund in whole or part for any expenses not incurred by the impounding organization upon determination of the charges. If the charges are dismissed or the person is acquitted, the person who posted security is entitled to a full refund, including reimbursement from the impounding organization as well as return of the animal. The court will order the refund and reimbursement to be made within a reasonable time.

Research Labs, Shelters, & Veterinary Schools

Some people fear that their pets, when lost or given to a shelter, may wind up in a research lab or veterinary school. The following provides some information on how these three places interact, and the standards that apply to each one of them.

The Animal Welfare Act, a federal law passed in 1966, states that it is enacted “in order to protect the owners of dogs and cats from theft of such pets.” It also provides rules for the care and treatment of animals in research. New York Law AGM §366(a), pertaining to the removing, seizing or transporting of dogs for research purposes, states that:

It shall be unlawful for any person:
1. To remove, seize or transport or cause to remove, seize or transport any dog which belongs to or is licensed to another for the purpose of sale, barter or to give away said dog to a laboratory, hospital, research institute, medical school or any agency or organization engaged in research activity, without the express written permission of the owner or licensee.
2. Any person who violates the provision of this section, upon conviction thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and is punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.

According to the Americans for Medical Progress ("AMP"), an organization in favor of use of animals in research, over 99% of the animals used in today’s research are “purpose bred” (i.e., bred specifically for research purposes), and that those not specifically created for research come from licensed Class B animal dealers that are regulated and inspected by the USDA. AMP estimates that rats and mice account for about 95 percent of all animals used in research; and states that most of the remaining research animals are rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, fish and insects.

That may sound reassuring, particularly if one doesn't care for those animals, doesn't hesitate to use a mouse trap or insect spray, and has no apprehension about, or just doesn't care to know, where the meat on one's table comes from. It may also be reassuring if one is accepting those percentages and not asking just how many animals in total are used in medical research. The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") publishes a chart each year showing the breakdown of animals used in USDA-regulated medical research. 2010 Chart. 2016 Chart. As The Hastings Center pointed out, based on the 2010 Chart, "an estimated 26 million animals are used for research, testing, and education in the United States each year. More than 70,000 of them are nonhuman primates."

This chart from the Hastings Center "shows which animals were used for research, testing, and educational purposes in the U.S. in 2010 in descending order of their quantities. As noted below, some of the numbers are estimates, and there are other limitations to the data."

Where do animals go when they are done being used for medical research? Pursuant to Education Law §239-b(1),

A higher education research facility that receives public money, including tax-exempt status, or a facility that provides research in collaboration with a higher education facility shall after the completion of any testing or research involving a dog or cat, assess the health of the dog or cat and determine whether it is suitable for adoption. Such facility shall thereafter make reasonable efforts to offer for adoption the dog or cat determined to be suitable for adoption, either through private placement or through an animal rescue and shelter organization, a duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, a duly incorporated humane society, or a duly incorporated animal protective association that operates physical animal sheltering facilities and offers household pets to the public for adoption by way of an established adoption program, prior to euthanizing such dog or cat. Nothing in this section shall create a duty upon such an organization, association or society to accept a dog or cat offered by a higher education research facility for adoption.

This is a tough subject. Humans are essentially out of being prey in the food chain. We are conscious of the world around us, and the result of our actions. We evolved as carnivores. Mice and roaches bring disease to our homes. Turkey is the traditional Thanksgiving meal. People's positions span a great range, from someone having no qualms about any use of animals to someone being a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA").

But getting back to the fears of the individual pet owner. According to Last Chance for Animals ("LCA") "[e]ach year, countless companion animals are stolen from yards, cars, and public areas or fraudulently obtained through 'free to good home' ads. Many of these stolen pets are forced to breed in puppy mills, used as dogfight training bait or resold in a practice called 'pet flipping.' In the past, most stolen pets were sold for medical research by Class B dealers, but due to a new law effective in 2016, they will finally be out of business."

With all of this mind, here's a scenario: The careful owner took measures to keep his/her pet from being stolen, but now needs to go into a nursing home which doesn't allow pets. No family or friends are able to take the pet. The owner won't chance it with a "free to good home" ad. Instead, the owner gives the pet to a "no kill" shelter. Owner feels he/she did the best thing. PETA might disagree, not being in favor of "no kill" shelters. But maybe this is a shelter that has a "foster care" program for its charges, so that no animal is confined to a cage for long. Is the pet now safe from harm, however that is individually defined?

This is when direct questions have to be asked of an animal shelter, if one wants to know. It may be that there is no other shelter in the area and thus no choice no matter what the answers are. Some basic questions: What is the shelter's mission? Is this a "no kill" shelter and exactly what does that mean? Where does the shelter's funding come from? Does the shelter provide animals for medical research? Is there a veterinarian on staff? Does the shelter have sufficient funds to otherwise provide for veterinary care? What is the average length of time before adoption? How does that vary with the age of the animal? How often is the dog walked? What play area for the cats? How much human attention? Are there volunteers? Would I be able to visit with the animal until its adoption? Remember that the shelter becomes the owner of the animal, with all the rights of an owner, subject to its own internal rules and regulations.

Sometimes shelters contract with veterinary schools in order to obtain free care for some of the animals. Town of Islip Animal Shelter Memorandum of Understanding with Suffolk County Community College. Heart of the Catskills Humane Society Memorandum of Understanding with SUNY Delhi. These agreements allow the students to practice on live animals, under the instruction of a licensed veterinarian, and the animals receive necessary care. Is there a downside? That depends on whether the agreement allows for unnecessary procedures, and again, on what "harm" means. People's opinions differ. Of course, a consideration is whether the animal would receive necessary veterinarian care if it were not being loaned to a school. In veterinary tech schools, one unnecessary procedure that may occur is the anesthetizing of an animal in order for a student to learn different positionings for x-rays. (Unlike humans, animals do not follow directions for x-rays, so the only way to practice is to anesthetize them.) Others are repetitive intubation, jugular vein blood draws, and standard blood draws.

If a cat or dog is bought from a pet dealer, General Business Law §753-b requires disclosure of any veterinary treatment or medication while in the dealer's possession.

Locate an American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) accredited hospital (AAHA).

Service Animals

FAQs Re: Service Animals and the Americans with Disabilities Act (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

Pet Cemeteries

Pet Cemetery and Pet Crematorium (NYS Department of State, Division of Licensing Services)

Resources

A trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal may be established pursuant NYS EPTL Article 7, Part 8.