BILL NUMBER:  S4163

 TITLE OF BILL :  An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to aggravated 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 recovery. 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 interpretation 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 cruelty 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 :

2015-2016: S.4265/A.6252

 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :

None