tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw/26 2010-03-19T16:22:13Z Sponsored by the Commitee on Animals and the Law of the New York State Bar Association The opinions expressed and statements made by the bloggers are those of the blogger alone and do not reflect the opinions of the NYSBA, its sections, committees, special committees or subcommittees or any employee or other member thereof. The NYSBA and all other entities mentioned above are not responsible for the accuracy of any information supplied by the bloggers, and the Committee on Animals and the Law retains the absolute right to edit or remove any blog entries that are deemed to be inappropriate. Movable Type 3.33 tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2351 2010-03-19T16:16:46Z 2010-03-19T16:22:13Z

Responding to evidence that people who abuse animals often go on to attack humans, states are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty and developing better methods for tracking convicted offenders, the New York Times reports. Legislators are paying close attention...

Julia Fidenzio Responding to evidence that people who abuse animals often go on to attack humans, states are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty and developing better methods for tracking convicted offenders, the New York Times reports. Legislators are paying close attention to animal hoarders because such offenders are prone to recidivism and can cost counties huge sums for cleanup costs and the care of rescued animals. At least 27 states allow courts to bar convicted animal abusers from owning or coming into contact with pets, nearly double the number a decade ago, and 3 other states are considering similar measures. States are also pushing for improved tracking of offenders. Tennessee and California are considering bills to create online registries of animal abusers. Advocates for the registries say they will be useful because they will allow animal shelters to screen potential adopters, alert law enforcement to the presence of residents with a history of hoarding and warn communities about violent offenders. But opponents argue that once people have served their time and paid their fines, they should not be punished indefinitely for their crimes. What do you think? Should animal abusers be registered like sex offenders on a website? The article of interest is located at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18animal.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2332 2010-03-10T15:27:00Z 2010-03-10T15:29:33Z

Should Animals be represented by lawyers? This question was asked in a referendum in Switzerland this past Sunday. The referendum was initiated by the Swiss Animal Protection (PSA) group and would have obliged all cantons to name a lawyer for...

Julia Fidenzio Should Animals be represented by lawyers? This question was asked in a referendum in Switzerland this past Sunday. The referendum was initiated by the Swiss Animal Protection (PSA) group and would have obliged all cantons to name a lawyer for animals during judicial proceedings. This system already exists in Zurich Canton and PSA hoped to make it a rule nationwide. 70.5% of the overall 45% voter turnout voted against it. Opponents of the Bill argue that Switzerland already has one of the world's most comprehensive laws on animal rights (i.e., under laws revised in 2008, people wanting to get rid of a fish cannot flush it down a toilet bowl alive. It must be knocked out, killed and then its body disposed of. Sociable household pets such as budgies and hamsters cannot be left alone. Sheep and goats must have at least a "visual contact with their fellows".) But proponents of the Bill respond that these laws are not enforced with enough severity. What do you think? tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2251 2010-02-16T21:10:08Z 2010-02-16T21:33:53Z

On Saturday, February 13, 2010, thousands of people gathered at the War Dog Memorial in California to honor both the war veteran handlers and, of course, their dogs. This reunion brings to the forefront the manner by which dogs were...

Liam Castro On Saturday, February 13, 2010, thousands of people gathered at the War Dog Memorial in California to honor both the war veteran handlers and, of course, their dogs. This reunion brings to the forefront the manner by which dogs were and, perhaps, are treated by the military. As a recent article on www.cnn.com, noted, “[o]f the more than 4,000 dogs who served in Vietnam, only about 200 came home. Many of them euthanized, help to avert more than 10,000 casualties . . ” Thankfully, in 2000, the U.S. changed policy, setting up a military working dog adoption program. However, that program has its problems. For one, the program is not widely publicized. Second, many adoptable veteran war dogs are euthanized, even after years of loyal and dedicated service. Should the military establish a user-friendly adoption website? Should the military be precluded from euthanizing adoptable veteran war dogs until they are adopted? If the military were to stop euthanizing these war veterans, would they not just add to the over population of pets that we already have in this country? Of, should the military accept full responsibility for the care, custody and control for these veterans until they are adopted or become unadoptable? The article of interest is located at http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/02/12/war.dogs/index.html?hpt=C1. You can also see more information about the adoption program at http://www.lackland.af.mil/units/341stmwd/index.asp tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2250 2010-02-16T20:32:11Z 2010-02-16T20:32:46Z

Nassau County, on Long Island, has become the newest municipality which has created a unit entirely devoted to the prevention of the mistreatment of animals and to the investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty and neglect cases. The Nassau County...

Liam Castro Nassau County, on Long Island, has become the newest municipality which has created a unit entirely devoted to the prevention of the mistreatment of animals and to the investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty and neglect cases. The Nassau County District Attorney announced the creation of this new unit which will also include a telephone tip line which citizens are encouraged to use to report suspected incidents of animal mistreatment. People who call the tip line may remain anonymous. In addition, the Unit’s prosecutors reportedly will conduct training of law enforcement personnel and be available to speak to animal welfare groups. Please share your thoughts on this issue. Do you think a unit like this which encompasses all aspects of an animal cruelty prosecution is the most effective way to reduce the incidents of animal cruelty? Should it also include a public education component or would the cost of using prosecutors to educate citizens be prohibitive? Are there any alternatives which would be more cost effective? If you would like further information about this newly created unit, please go to our website at http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Animals_in_the_News tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2209 2010-02-04T16:19:30Z 2010-02-04T16:20:25Z

The West Hollywood Council announced the passage of an ordinance banning the sale of dogs and cats in its pet shops. The purpose of the ordinance is to begin the process of ending puppy mills, from where local pet shops...

Liam Castro The West Hollywood Council announced the passage of an ordinance banning the sale of dogs and cats in its pet shops. The purpose of the ordinance is to begin the process of ending puppy mills, from where local pet shops purchase dogs. Puppy mills have long been considered a place of animal cruelty, where dogs are kept in inhumane conditions, and where unhealthy dogs are breed purely for profit. See the article here: http://www.examiner.com/x-941-LA-Pets-Examiner~y2010m2d2-West-Hollywood-passes-landmark-legislation-against-sale-of-pets\ Do you think New York State should consider a similar ban? Why? Or, instead, do you think puppy mills should be more stringently regulated and inspected to ensure that the animals are properly kept and breed? tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2208 2010-02-04T14:42:16Z 2010-02-04T14:44:40Z

A widely publicized case in which a co-operative board was pitted against a 92 year old woman and her fourteen year old toy poodle has been resolved. A federal court ruled that fair housing laws had been violated by the...

Julia Fidenzio A widely publicized case in which a co-operative board was pitted against a 92 year old woman and her fourteen year old toy poodle has been resolved. A federal court ruled that fair housing laws had been violated by the co-op’s failure to recognize and make accommodations for the woman’s disability, depression, which was remediated by the presence of her dog. Federal law requires that “reasonable accommodations” must be made for residents who need animals to assist them in dealing with a disability, which encompasses mental as well as physical disabilities. An article discussing this situation can be found at http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/rockville-centre-co-op-lets-woman-92-keep-her-dog-1.1728315 . Do you agree that depression should classify as a disability which mandates accommodations in the nature of companion animals? Do you think that there should be any conditions, other than disabilities per se which should mandate reasonable accommodations in the nature of assistance animals? For instance with the baby boomer population aging, should loneliness be considered such a condition? tag:nysbar.com,2010:/blogs/animalaw//26.2207 2010-02-03T20:39:57Z 2010-02-03T20:48:38Z

Damages for the malicious injury to pets may be allowed under Massachusetts House Bill 1250. The legislation first introduced in 2009 sponsored by Rep. James Arciero, was heard before the Joint Committee on Judiciary on January 28th. No amendments were...

Julia Fidenzio malicious injury or the killing of a pet not in case of negligence. Do you think that this distinction is enough to disregard the potential consequences of allowing non-economic damages or do you think that this could lead to a slippery slope allowing for other non-economic damages? Or do you think that non-economic damages should be allowed no matter what? ]]> tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.2028 2009-11-13T15:24:28Z 2009-11-13T15:26:15Z

In Dudley, Massachussetts it is now illegal to own more than 3 cats without a $50 residential kennel license. The vote came as a result of a neighborhood feud over the 15 cats owned by Mary Ellen Richards who works...

Julia Fidenzio In Dudley, Massachussetts it is now illegal to own more than 3 cats without a $50 residential kennel license. The vote came as a result of a neighborhood feud over the 15 cats owned by Mary Ellen Richards who works with the organization Willys Kitty Angels Rescue, which traps feral and stray cats to control the population. She claims that all the cats in her care have received veterinary care and are up to date on all their shots. However, a neighbor claimed the cats have ruined his yard. Another neighbor alleged that her 2-year-old daughter contracted Coxsackie virus, also known as hand-foot-and-mouth disease, from a toy or ball that likely came into contact with cat feces. Do you think limiting the amount of pets will resolve the issues raised by the neighbors? Do you think that a town or even a state should limit the amount of pets people can own and why? Do you think that there should be a distinction between species of pets (i.e. limit the number of dogs and not cats or vice versa)? tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.2027 2009-11-13T14:59:25Z 2009-11-13T15:50:50Z

In early October 2009 the U. S. District Court for the Western District in Louisville, Kentucky, struck down parts of a municipal ordinance which were substantially similar to existing New York law governing forfeiture of animals in animal cruelty cases....

Liam Castro In early October 2009 the U. S. District Court for the Western District in Louisville, Kentucky, struck down parts of a municipal ordinance which were substantially similar to existing New York law governing forfeiture of animals in animal cruelty cases. The federal court enjoined the City of Louisville from enforcement of § 91.101 of Metro Louisville’s controversial “Animal Ordinance” (http://www.louisville-pets.com/Louisville_Animal_Ordinance_Final.pdf), because it “threatens to deprive pet owners of their property rights without a finding of guilt .” Judge Simpson’s Order and Memorandum Opinion is available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/21749661/Louisville-Decision. Regarding a section of Louisville’s ordinance allowing animals to be seized and forfeited prior to adjudication of charges if the defendant fails to post a security bond to guarantee the cost of maintaining the animal(s) during proceedings, the court reasoned: “It is perfectly possible for a judge to find probable cause that a person has committed an offense, but for the person to later be found innocent. Under the scheme set up [in Louisville] if a person was unable to put up $450 immediately upon the probable cause finding, his pet is forfeit and he has no apparent recourse for its recovery, even if he is ultimately found innocent of the underlying charge. There is thus a high risk of erroneous deprivation.” (emphasis added) Does New York law support erroneous deprivation? Like Louisville, New York State law allows similar onerous financial requirements to be placed upon defendants at arraignment by the filing of civil petitions for security bonds requesting the cost of maintaining animals seized while charges are pending. Agriculture and Markets Law Article 26, §373(6)(a), sets out seizure and subsequent forfeiture proceedings. In New York, unlike Louisville, beneficiary impounding organizations are private, not for profit corporations or authorized agents, and not a municipal agency. Forfeited property (animals) goes to the private impounding organization, not the State of New York. Agriculture and Markets Article 26, §373(6)(b)(2) allows the court to order immediate forfeiture of seized animals if security bond requirements are not met within five business days, and allows impounding organizations to sell or euthanize forfeited animals. These provisions mean that if the defendant has the money to pay the bond (often many thousands of dollars per month), the animal owner is disbursing money prior to discovery, pre-trial motion hearings, prior to trial, and obviously, prior to a verdict on the alleged charges. Conversely, if the defendant does not have the finances to pay the bond, he will immediately and permanently forfeit his animals - his property – prior to any action being taken in his defense. Disposition of seized property in New York Estimated costs to be born by an impounding organization with custody of seized animals are cited as justification for security bonds. In essence, New York’s forfeiture provisions make the defendant responsible for preserving the evidence. This is antithetical to the provisions of CPL § 690.55, which clearly places the onus for maintaining seized property on the courts and the agencies which have custody. Defendants cannot be divested of property no longer in their possession because of the cost of maintaining it. This is a clear violation of the defendant’s right to due process. Erroneous deprivation here and now Private, not-for-profit corporations acting as complainants and impounding organizations, benefit from participation in New York’s pre-adjudication forfeiture proceedings. They receive either the security bonds , or the valuable animals forfeited. These clear financial incentives for seizure and forfeiture of animals yield a troubling, corrupt pattern of pre-adjudication forfeiture. In Louisville, Judge Simpson struck down a provision that would permanently deprive a pet owner of his property, absent a finding of guilt. tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.1997 2009-10-30T16:26:50Z 2009-10-30T16:40:57Z

The management of a building in Hoboken, NJ has suddenly decided to enforce a building policy banning dogs weighing more than 25 pounds or pay $500 fee per day. Some of the tenants and condos owners were aware of the...

Liam Castro The management of a building in Hoboken, NJ has suddenly decided to enforce a building policy banning dogs weighing more than 25 pounds or pay $500 fee per day. Some of the tenants and condos owners were aware of the rule but nobody ever enforced it. Now they are faced with the choice of getting rid of their animal or break their lease or even sale their apartment. (1) Should it be illegal to compel residents of the property at issue to get rid of their pets? (2) Do you think there should be a s state laws mimicking the New York City pet law stating that residents living in buildings with more than three units may keep a pet in a no-pet building if that animal has been kept "openly and notoriously" for three months or more? tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.1979 2009-10-22T15:52:52Z 2009-10-22T15:53:19Z

Over the past few months, serial animal killings have plagued Miami-Dade, Florida, resulting in arrests of, among others, an 18 year old boy. These serial killings include both horses and cats. In an October 13, 2009, article, the Miami Herald...

Liam Castro Over the past few months, serial animal killings have plagued Miami-Dade, Florida, resulting in arrests of, among others, an 18 year old boy. These serial killings include both horses and cats. In an October 13, 2009, article, the Miami Herald reported that “[t]he serial killing of horses has shaken thousands of South Florida residents. Last week, the owner of a ranch in southwest Miami-Dade was arrested, along with his employee, for attempting to sell horse meat at $5 a pound. Police say they found 240 pounds of what seemed to be horse meat in his freezer. . . . The motivation? Probably to sell his meat in the black market. The article also reported that the killings were also of pet horses. The article is located at http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/1279478.html But it is not only horse killings that plague Miami-Dade, Florida. As that article tells us, during the months of May and June, a serial cat killer roamed neighborhoods in the same area. Some reports indicate that as many as 30 cats disappeared and were discovered killed and mutilated during that time. As reported in the articles linked below, on June 14, 2009, the Miami-Dade police department apparently put an end to what one official called a “reign of terror” when it arrested an 18 year old boy, charging him with 19 counts of animal cruelty and 19 counts of improperly disposing of animal remains. The articles are located at http://cbs4.com/local/cat.cats.mutilated.2.1043752.html and http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Dissecting-the-Accused-Cat-Killer.html Bail was set at $249,500, and now begins the process of examining how and why this boy allegedly would commit such horrific acts and what can be done to prevent other such violent acts. Should horses be considered companion animals like cats and dogs and not subject to slaughter for human consumption? What do you think should be done about teen animal cruelty? Increased punishment? Or should our government try to prevent teen animal violence through social programs for children and teens? Note: On September 18, 2008, a program organized by the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Animals and the Law explored issues involving, and appropriately titled, “Teen Animal Cruelty: Legal Issues and Practical Solutions”. This program provided various perspectives of issues involved in animal cruelty cases and in particular those relating to youthful offenders and the unique interventions employed by some states. The program was video taped and the program materials and a video replay are available at: http://www.nysba.org/Content/NavigationMenu45/AnimalWeek/Teen.Animal.Cruelty.links.to.files.doc . tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.1978 2009-10-22T15:49:39Z 2009-10-22T15:50:44Z

This summer, the Court of Appeals answered a question certified to it by the Second Department Appellate Division and in doing so, it reaffirmed a long standing principle of law on this State and resolved a conflict which had developed...

Liam Castro This summer, the Court of Appeals answered a question certified to it by the Second Department Appellate Division and in doing so, it reaffirmed a long standing principle of law on this State and resolved a conflict which had developed among the appellate division departments. In Petrone v. Fernandez, 910 N.E.2d 993, 12 N.Y.3d 546, 883 N.Y.S.2d 164 (2009), a mail carrier had sued a homeowner and a dog owner for injury to her finger which she incurred as she attempted to jump back into her vehicle after running away from a dog which she claimed was charging her. At the time of the incident, the dog had been unleashed and located on the front property of the homeowner. When the dog’s owner heard the mail carrier, he called his dog back to him and the dog complied. The mail carrier’s law suit was based both upon strict liability and negligence causes of action. The first cause of action alleged that the defendants knew or should have known of the dog’s prior history of vicious propensities, and the second cause of action alleged that the defendants’ violation of a local leash law amounted to negligence with entitled her to recover for her injuries. The court observed that the dog did not bite, threaten or even make any contact with the plaintiff and indeed the plaintiff could not recall if the dog had even barked at her. The court reiterated the principle that in New York State, “a domestic animal’s owner’s liability is determined solely by . . . the rule of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities.” It expressly rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to have negligence be a basis for imposing liability, thereby clarifying the only standard recognized in this State for holding an animal’s owner liable for injuries that it may cause. Do you agree with the court’s conclusion? If you think that a plaintiff should be able to use a violation of a local ordinance to support a cause of action, what types of ordinances should they be? If you are in favor of any other standard for holding domestic animal owners liable for injuries they cause, what is it? tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.1960 2009-10-19T20:11:58Z 2009-10-19T20:13:46Z

Pet custody has garnered increasing attention in the field of Animal Law as well as in the general media. Some more common pet custody issues were discussed in a prior entry in this Blog, other pet custody issues will be...

Liam Castro Pet custody has garnered increasing attention in the field of Animal Law as well as in the general media. Some more common pet custody issues were discussed in a prior entry in this Blog, other pet custody issues will be addressed in the Committee on Animals and the Law's January 27, 2010 continuing legal education program, "Hot Topics in Animal Law". A rather different twist on pet custody is reported in this Telegrah.co.uk article written by David Barrett, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6360116/Immigrant-allowed-to-stay-because-of-pet-cat.html , relating to an immigration decision apparently allowing an immigrant to stay, at least in part, because he and his girlfriend had bought a pet cat together. Their joint ownership of the cat was indicia of their depth of their relationship with each other and that he was fully settled in the Country. Do you think this is a good decision and why? When an immigrant in the US marries a US citizen, should a US Immigration Judge consider as part of their com-mingled assets the co-ownership of a pet? tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.1927 2009-10-05T19:04:50Z 2009-10-06T15:07:23Z

On October 6, the Supreme Court will take on a Western Pennsylvania case that pits animal-cruelty opponents against First Amendment advocates. In 2005, Robert J. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison in federal court in Pittsburgh, under a...

Julia Fidenzio On October 6, the Supreme Court will take on a Western Pennsylvania case that pits animal-cruelty opponents against First Amendment advocates. In 2005, Robert J. Stevens was sentenced to 37 months in prison in federal court in Pittsburgh, under a 1999 federal law, for compiling and selling dog fighting videos. He wasn't actually involved in the dog fighting shown in the films but the federal law criminalizes "the visual or auditory depiction . . . in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed," provided that the conduct depicted is illegal under federal law or in the state where it is created, sold, or possessed. The law was passed to combat "crush" videos, in which women typically wearing high-heeled shoes crush to death small mammals for the sexual gratification of viewers. The law does contain an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Last year, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned his conviction and ruled that the federal law illegally restricts free speech. The central issue is whether the Supreme Curt should for the first time in a generation designate a category of expression as so vile that it deserves no protection under the First Amendment. The last time the court did that was in 1982; the subject was child pornography. Supporters of the law argue that, the law is not a threat to free speech, because it specifically exempted any speech with serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historic or artistic value. But free-speech advocates argue the law is so broad that it could apply to other works, such as hunting videos or photography, documentaries and even news footage showing animal cruelty. What do you think? tag:nysbar.com,2009:/blogs/animalaw//26.1904 2009-09-25T20:54:54Z 2009-09-25T21:09:18Z

In September 2009 State Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Shafer found that the City violated the Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act, NYC CODE § 17-801, et seq. and ordered New York City to submit to it a plan to open animal...

Liam Castro Download a copy of the decision and order here. (PDF) In your view, is this a good decision? Despite your answer, explain why? We also invite your thoughts about this decision, generally.]]>