Establishes a civil remedy for the protection of animals denied proper care

• Democratic32
• Republican19

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Michael Gianaris says this is needed

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 finall

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.