What's happening
This bill allows judges to decide, rather than require, whether to seize a dangerous dog and adds new procedures for ensuring compliance with court orders.
Why it matters
Gives judges more discretion. By changing “shall” to “may,” this bill allows judges to decide whether a dangerous dog should be seized after a complaint, rather than requiring automatic seizure. This could help ensure that seizure is only used when truly necessary, potentially reducing stress on dogs and owners in less severe cases.
Adds a compliance enforcement mechanism. The bill introduces a new procedure for situations where the court orders certain actions (like training, confinement, or insurance) but needs proof they’ve been completed. If the owner doesn’t provide satisfactory proof, the judge can order the dog to be seized until compliance is shown, potentially increasing accountability.
Balances public safety and owner rights. By making seizure optional except when needed for compliance, the bill tries to balance protecting the public from dangerous dogs with treating dog owners fairly, possibly reducing the number of dogs unnecessarily removed from their homes.
May impact animal control and legal processes. The changes could affect how quickly and often dogs are seized and held by authorities, potentially easing the burden on animal shelters and law enforcement, while also requiring courts to make more nuanced decisions in dangerous dog cases.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Allow Judges Seize Dangerous Dogs
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to agriculture
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
10389
IN ASSEMBLY
April 18, 2018
Introduced by M. of A. ZEBROWSKI -- read once and referred to the Committee on Agriculture
AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to the seizure of a dangerous dog
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Subdivision 2 of section 123 of the agriculture and markets law, as amended by section 18 of part T of chapter 59 of the laws of 2010, is amended to read as follows:
2. (a) Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may, and any dog control officer or police officer as provided in subdivision one of this section shall, make a complaint under oath or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or threatened attack. Thereupon, the judge or justice shall immediately determine if there is probable cause to believe the dog is a dangerous dog and, if so, [shall] may issue an order to any dog control officer, peace officer, acting pursuant to his or her special duties, or police officer directing such officer to immediately seize such dog and hold the same pending judicial determination as provided in this section. Whether or not the judge or justice finds there is probable cause for such seizure, he or she shall, within five days and upon written notice of not less than two days to the owner of the dog, hold a hearing on the complaint. The petitioner shall have the burden at such hearing to prove the dog is a "dangerous dog" by clear and convincing evidence. If satisfied that the dog is a dangerous dog, the judge or justice shall [then] order neutering or spaying of the dog, microchipping of the dog and one or more of the following as deemed appropriate under the circumstances and as deemed necessary for the protection of the public:
[(a)] (i) evaluation of the dog by a certified applied behaviorist, a board certified veterinary behaviorist, or another recognized expert in the field and completion of training or other treatment as deemed appropriate by such expert. The owner of the dog shall be responsible for all
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD15345-01-8
A. 10389 2
costs associated with evaluations and training ordered under this section;
[(b)] (ii) secure, humane confinement of the dog for a period of time and in a manner deemed appropriate by the court but in all instances in a manner designed to: (1) prevent escape of the dog, (2) protect the public from unauthorized contact with the dog, and (3) to protect the dog from the elements pursuant to section three hundred fifty-three-b of this chapter. Such confinement shall not include lengthy periods of tying or chaining;
[(c)] (iii) restraint of the dog on a leash by an adult of at least twenty-one years of age whenever the dog is on public premises;
[(d)] (iv) muzzling the dog whenever it is on public premises in a manner that will prevent it from biting any person or animal, but that shall not injure the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration; or
[(e)] (v) maintenance of a liability insurance policy in an amount determined by the court, but in no event in excess of one hundred thousand dollars for personal injury or death resulting from an attack by such dangerous dog.
(b) If the judge or justice finds that proof of compliance with an order of the court pursuant to this subdivision or subdivision three of this section is necessary for the protection of the public, the judge or justice may issue an order to any dog control officer, peace officer acting pursuant to his or her special duties, or police officer directing such officer to immediately seize the dog and hold the same until such time as the owner has produced proof of compliance satisfactory to the court.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.