BILL NUMBER: S960

SPONSOR: KRUEGER
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to aggra-
vated cruelty to animals

 
PURPOSE:

Removes the term "serious" from the "serious physical injury" language
of Section 353-a of the agriculture and markets law.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Subdivision one of Section 353-a of the agriculture and markets law
would be amended, with the term "serious" in line 3 of subdivision one
struck, to read only as "...intentionally causes (serious) physical
injury to a companion animal...".

 
              

JUSTIFICATION:

In June 2014 on Staten Island, Rocky, an English bulldog, was the victim
of a terrible act of cruelty when a neighbor threw ammonia in his face
in an attempt to quiet his barking. By the time they brought Rocky to
the vet, he had ulcers in both his eyes and the vet wasn't sure if he
would ever see again. Thankfully, Rocky was able to make a full recov-
ery. Yet this recovery also gave the perpetrator a way out. Due to the
language of the felony animal cruelty statute, a charge could not be
sustained. The dog's recovery conflicted with the prosecutor's interpre-
tation of "serious physical injury". This meant that because the dog
survived and recovered 100's, the perpetrator would be facing a lesser
penalty. This is nothing new. The Times Union reports that only 17% of
those charged with felony aggravated cruelty to animals end up in felony
convictions (in New York State). In this case, the perpetrator was given
conditional discharge after being convicted of misdemeanor animal cruel-
ty charges, and forced to pay $1,000 to the ASPCA for the dog's medical
treatment. Also, the perpetrator may not go near Rocky, and may never be
allowed to own a dog again. It is evident the punishment does not fit
the crime. Eliminating the word "serious" from the statute would fix
this, so if a person's actions were intended to cause extreme physical
pain or conducted in an especially depraved or sadistic manner (language
from section 353-a of the Agriculture and Markets law), one would only
have to prove that the animal was killed or injured.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2019-2020: S.2723 Died on Third Reading/A.757  Rosenthal - Agriculture
2017-2018: S4163 Agriculture /A.3844 Rosenthal-Agriculture
2015-2016: S.4265 Passed Senate /A.6252 Rosenthal- Agriculture

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None