senate Bill S2665B

Signed By Governor
2013-2014 Legislative Session

Authorizes DA on behalf of impounding organizations to file a petition seeking a security for the reasonable costs for caring for seized animals from individuals convicted of certain animal cruelty

download bill text pdf

Sponsored By

Archive: Last Bill Status - Signed by Governor


  • Introduced
  • In Committee
  • On Floor Calendar
    • Passed Senate
    • Passed Assembly
  • Delivered to Governor
  • Signed by Governor

do you support this bill?

Actions

view actions (16)
Assembly Actions - Lowercase
Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Dec 18, 2013 signed chap.531
Dec 06, 2013 delivered to governor
Jun 21, 2013 returned to senate
passed assembly
ordered to third reading rules cal.685
substituted for a5113a
Jun 18, 2013 referred to codes
delivered to assembly
passed senate
ordered to third reading cal.1430
committee discharged and committed to rules
Jun 11, 2013 print number 2665b
amend and recommit to agriculture
Mar 01, 2013 print number 2665a
amend and recommit to agriculture
Jan 23, 2013 referred to agriculture

Votes

view votes

Bill Amendments

Original
A
B (Active)
Original
A
B (Active)

S2665 - Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A5113A
Law Section:
Agriculture and Markets Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §373, Ag & Mkts L
Versions Introduced in Previous Legislative Sessions:
2011-2012: S3806
2009-2010: S3155

S2665 - Bill Texts

view summary

Authorizes DA on behalf of impounding organizations to file a petition seeking a security for the reasonable costs for caring for seized animals from individuals convicted of certain animal cruelty and animal fighting offenses.

view sponsor memo
BILL NUMBER:S2665

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to orders of restitution in certain cases

PURPOSE: To require courts to hold a hearing to determine whether the
person from whom an animal is seized, or the owner of the animal, should
be ordered to post a security to reimburse the impounding organization
such as a duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to
animals, humane society, pound, animal shelter, or any authorized agents
thereof for the cost of care for the seized animal.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one provides the legislative purpose.

Section two amends paragraph a of subdivision 6 of section 373 of the
agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 586 of the laws of
2008 by providing that the court shall, within a reasonable time after
arraignment, hold a hearing to determine if the person from whom an
animal is seized, or the owner of the animal, should be ordered to post
a security to reimburse a duly incorporated society for the prevention
of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal shelter, or any
authorized agents thereof for the cost of care for the seized animal.

Section three amends paragraphs band c of subdivision 6 of section 373
of the agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 256 of the
laws of 1997, subparagraph 2 of paragraph has amended by section 24 of
part T of chapter 59 of the laws of 2010, by providing certain proce-
dural changes regarding service and filing of papers. This section
provides that the district attorney rather than the petitioner shall
have the burden of proof, unless the impounding organization appears at
the hearing and requests to present evidence and meet such burden on its
own behalf.

JUSTIFICATION: Often in cases of animal cruelty, animals are seized by
a law enforcement agent(s). Afterward, housing and care for such animals
must be found. Historically, organizations such as shelters, humane
societies, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and
rescue organizations have assisted law enforcement by providing care for
such animals. Through their vital services, the animals are safe and the
"evidence" in criminal trials is preserved. Such organizations have
provided services often with little or no reimbursement.

The financial burden of caring for many animals, often for lengthy peri-
ods of time, is forcing some organizations to decline assisting law
enforcement, refusing to place seized animals. Where there is no organ-
ization to care for seized animals, law enforcement is less likely to
conduct seizures and animals remain in abusive situations and condi-
tions.

Although New York's current security posting law is intended to allevi-
ate some of the financial burden on agencies and organizations, it does
not always achieve that result. Currently, security posting is discre-
tionary and courts sometimes do not require it, even when the requisite
burden of proof has been met. Impounding organizations, currently, must
file a petition to obtain a security posting. Often, however, they do
not have legal counsel and are unaware that they have the option to seek
a security posting.

By requiring courts to automatically hold a hearing to determine securi-
ty postings when the state is bringing animal cruelty charges, it will
be more likely that impounding organizations will be compensated for
their services and will continue to provide places of care for abused
animals.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2010: Referred to Agriculture (S.3155 C Johnson)
6/7/11: Reported and Committed to Rules 1/4/12 Referred to Agriculture

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the state.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

view full text
download pdf
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

                                  2665

                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                            January 23, 2013
                               ___________

Introduced  by  Sen.  BALL  --  read twice and ordered printed, and when
  printed to be committed to the Committee on Agriculture

AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation  to  orders
  of restitution in certain cases

  THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Legislative purpose. Animal cruelty and animal fighting are
serious crimes in New York state. Because crimes against  animals  often
involve  the  seizure of the victimized animals, these cases pose unique
challenges to law enforcement  agencies  throughout  this  state.  These
challenges  involve  arranging  for  the housing and care of the animals
while the criminal case is pending. Private organizations, such as shel-
ters, humane societies and societies for the prevention  of  cruelty  to
animals  have traditionally assisted law enforcement agencies by provid-
ing care for these animals (which preserves  the  "evidence"  seized  in
criminal matters) with little or no reimbursement.
  It  is imperative to the continued prosecution of animal cruelty cases
that these private organizations be reimbursed for the  care  that  they
provide  to  these  victimized  animals.  Many private organizations are
declining to offer assistance in these cases  because  of  the  enormous
financial  burden  of  caring for a large number of animals for extended
time periods with no assurance of reimbursement for these  services.  If
there are no resources to care for the animals once they are seized, law
enforcement  is  less likely to conduct the seizures in the first place.
The legislature therefore intends to  implement  legislation  that  will
improve  the state's ability to ensure proper security and reimbursement
for impounding organizations providing care on behalf of  the  state  of
abused animals.
  S  2.  Paragraph  a of subdivision 6 of section 373 of the agriculture
and markets law, as amended by chapter 586  of  the  laws  of  2008,  is
amended to read as follows:

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD07156-01-3

S. 2665                             2

  a. If any animal is seized and impounded pursuant to the provisions of
this  section,  section  three  hundred fifty-three-d of this article or
section three hundred seventy-five of this article for any violation  of
this  article,  upon arraignment of charges, OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
THEREAFTER,  THE  COURT  SHALL  ORDER A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
PERSON FROM WHOM AN ANIMAL IS SEIZED OR THE OWNER OF THE  ANIMAL  SHOULD
BE ORDERED TO POST A SECURITY TO REIMBURSE the duly incorporated society
for  the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal
shelter or any authorized agents thereof, hereinafter  referred  to  for
the purposes of this section as the "impounding organization", [may file
a petition with the court requesting that the person from whom an animal
is  seized or the owner of the animal be ordered to post a security. The
security] FOR THE COSTS OF CARING FOR SAID SEIZED ANIMALS. ANY  SECURITY
ORDERED  FOLLOWING  SUCH  A  HEARING shall be in an amount sufficient to
secure payment for all reasonable expenses expected to  be  incurred  by
the impounding organization in caring and providing for the animal pend-
ing  disposition  of the charges. Reasonable expenses shall include, but
not be limited to, estimated medical care and boarding of the animal for
at least thirty days. The amount of  the  security,  if  any,  shall  be
determined by the court after taking into consideration all of the facts
and  circumstances  of the case including, but not limited to the recom-
mendation of the impounding organization having custody and care of  the
seized  animal  and the cost of caring for the animal. If a security has
been posted in accordance with this section, the impounding organization
may draw from the security the actual reasonable costs to be incurred by
such organization in caring for the seized animal.
  S 3. Paragraphs b and c of subdivision 6 of section 373 of  the  agri-
culture  and markets law, as amended by chapter 256 of the laws of 1997,
subparagraph 2 of paragraph b as amended by section  24  of  part  T  of
chapter 59 of the laws of 2010, are amended to read as follows:
  b.  (1)  [Upon  receipt  of a petition pursuant to paragraph a of this
subdivision the] THE court shall set a hearing [on the petition]  to  be
conducted  within ten business days of [the filing of such petition] ITS
HEARING ORDER PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH A OF THIS  SUBDIVISION.  The  [peti-
tioner]  COURT  shall  serve a true copy of the [petition] HEARING ORDER
upon THE IMPOUNDING ORGANIZATION, the defendant and the district  attor-
ney.   The [petitioner] COURT shall also serve a true copy of the [peti-
tion] HEARING ORDER on any  interested  person.  For  purposes  of  this
subdivision,  interested  person  shall mean an individual, partnership,
firm, joint stock company, corporation, association,  trust,  estate  or
other  legal entity who the court determines may have a pecuniary inter-
est in the animal which is the subject of the [petition] HEARING  ORDER.
The [petitioner] DISTRICT ATTORNEY shall have the burden of proving by a
preponderance  of  the evidence that the person from whom the animal was
seized violated a provision  of  this  article,  UNLESS  THE  IMPOUNDING
ORGANIZATION  APPEARS  AT  THE  HEARING  AND  REQUESTS  TO  PRESENT SUCH
EVIDENCE AND MEET SUCH BURDEN ON ITS OWN BEHALF.   The court  may  waive
for good cause shown the posting of security.
  (2)  If the court orders the posting of a security, the security shall
be posted with the clerk of the court within five business days  of  the
[hearing provided for in subparagraph one of this paragraph] ORDER.  The
court  may  order  the  immediate forfeiture of the seized animal to the
impounding organization if the person ordered to post the security fails
to do so. Any animal forfeited shall be made available for  adoption  or
euthanized  subject to subdivision seven-a of section one hundred seven-

S. 2665                             3

teen of this chapter or section three hundred seventy-four of this arti-
cle.
  (3)  In the case of an animal other than a companion animal or pet, if
a person ordered to post security fails to do  so,  the  court  may,  in
addition  to  the  forfeiture  to  a  duly  incorporated society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal  shelter
or  any  authorized  agents  thereof, and subject to the restrictions of
sections three hundred fifty-four, three hundred fifty-seven  and  three
hundred  seventy-four  of  this  article, order the animal which was the
basis of the order to be sold,  provided  that  all  interested  persons
shall  first be provided the opportunity to redeem their interest in the
animal and to purchase the interest of the person ordered to post  secu-
rity,  subject  to  such  conditions  as  the court deems appropriate to
assure proper care and treatment of the animal.  The court may reimburse
the person ordered to post security and any interested persons any money
earned by the sale of the animal  less  any  costs  including,  but  not
limited  to, veterinary and custodial care. Any animal determined by the
court to be maimed, diseased, disabled or infirm so as to be  unfit  for
sale  or  any  useful  purpose shall be forfeited to a duly incorporated
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals or a duly  incorporated
humane  society  or  authorized  agents  thereof,  and  be available for
adoption or shall be euthanized subject to section three hundred  seven-
ty-four of this article.
  (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict in
any  way the rights of a secured party having a security interest in any
animal described in this section. This section expressly does not impair
or subordinate the rights of such a secured  lender  having  a  security
interest in the animal or in the proceeds from the sale of such animal.
  c.  In no event shall the security prevent the impounding organization
having custody and care of the  animal  from  disposing  of  the  animal
pursuant  to section three hundred seventy-four of this article prior to
the expiration of the thirty day period covered by the security  if  the
court  makes a determination of the charges against the person from whom
the animal was seized prior thereto. [Upon receipt of  a  petition  from
the  impounding  organization,  the] THE court may order the person from
whom the animal was seized or the owner of the animal to post  an  addi-
tional security with the clerk of the court to secure payment of reason-
able  expenses  for an additional period of time pending a determination
by the court of the charges against the person from whom the animal  was
seized. The person who posted the security shall be entitled to a refund
of  the  security in whole or part for any expenses not incurred by such
impounding organization upon adjudication of the charges. The person who
posted the security shall be entitled to a full refund of the  security,
including  reimbursement  by  the  impounding organization of any amount
allowed by the court to be expended, and the return of the animal seized
and impounded upon acquittal or dismissal of the charges,  except  where
the dismissal is based upon an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal
pursuant  to  section  215.30  of  the criminal procedure law. The court
order directing such refund and reimbursement shall provide for  payment
to  be  made within a reasonable time from the acquittal or dismissal of
charges.
  S 4. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
have become a law.

Co-Sponsors

S2665A - Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A5113A
Law Section:
Agriculture and Markets Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §373, Ag & Mkts L
Versions Introduced in Previous Legislative Sessions:
2011-2012: S3806
2009-2010: S3155

S2665A - Bill Texts

view summary

Authorizes DA on behalf of impounding organizations to file a petition seeking a security for the reasonable costs for caring for seized animals from individuals convicted of certain animal cruelty and animal fighting offenses.

view sponsor memo
BILL NUMBER:S2665A

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to orders of restitution in certain cases

PURPOSE: To require courts to hold a hearing to determine whether the
person from whom an animal is seized, or the owner of the animal,
should be ordered to post a security to reimburse the impounding
organization such as a duly incorporated society for the prevention of
cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal shelter, or any
authorized agents thereof for the cost of care for the seized animal.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one provides the legislative purpose

Section two amends paragraph a of subdivision 6 of section 373 of the
agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 586 of the laws of
2008 by providing that within a reasonable time after arraignment, the
impounding organization may file a petition with the court requesting
that the owner of the seized animal be ordered to post a security for
the reasonable costs of caring for the seized animal from the time of
seizure and impoundment.

Section three amends paragraphs b of subdivision 6 of section 373 of
the agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 256 of the laws
of 1997 by providing certain procedural changes regarding service and
filing of papers This section provides that the district attorney
rather than the petitioner shall have the burden of proof, unless the
impounding organization appears at the hearing and requests to present
evidence and meet such burden on its own behalf.

Section four provides the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION: Often in cases of animal cruelty, animals are seized by
a law enforcement agent(s). Afterward, housing and care for such
animals must be found. Historically, organizations such as shelters,
humane societies, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals,
and rescue organizations have assisted law enforcement by providing
care for such animals. Through their vital services, the animals are
safe and the "evidence" in criminal trials is preserved. Such
organizations have provided services often with little or no
reimbursement.

The financial burden of caring for many animals, often for lengthy
periods of time, is forcing some organizations to decline assisting
law enforcement, refusing to place seized animals. Where there is no
organization to care for seized animals, law enforcement is less
likely to conduct seizures and animals remain in abusive situations
and conditions.

Although New York's current security posting law is intended to
alleviate some of the financial burden on agencies and organizations,
it does not always achieve that result. Currently, security posting is
discretionary and courts sometimes do not require it, even when the
requisite burden of proof has been met. Impounding organizations,


currently, must file a petition to obtain a security posting. Often,
however, they do not have legal counsel and are unaware that they have
the option to seek a security posting.

By requiring courts to automatically hold a hearing to determine
security postings when the state is bringing animal cruelty charges,
it will be more likely that impounding organizations will be
compensated for their services and will continue to provide places of
care for abused animals.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2010: Referred to Agriculture (S.3155 C Johnson)
6/7/11: Reported and Committed to Rules 1/4/12 Referred to Agriculture

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the state.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

view full text
download pdf
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

                                 2665--A

                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                            January 23, 2013
                               ___________

Introduced  by  Sen.  BALL  --  read twice and ordered printed, and when
  printed to be committed to the Committee on Agriculture  --  committee
  discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted
  to said committee

AN  ACT  to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to orders
  of restitution in certain cases

  THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Legislative purpose. Animal cruelty and animal fighting are
serious  crimes  in New York state. Because crimes against animals often
involve the seizure of the victimized animals, these cases  pose  unique
challenges  to  law  enforcement  agencies  throughout this state. These
challenges involve arranging for the housing and  care  of  the  animals
while the criminal case is pending. Private organizations, such as shel-
ters,  humane  societies  and societies for the prevention of cruelty to
animals have traditionally assisted law enforcement agencies by  provid-
ing  care  for  these  animals (which preserves the "evidence" seized in
criminal matters) with little or no reimbursement.
  It is imperative to the continued prosecution of animal cruelty  cases
that  these  private  organizations be reimbursed for the care that they
provide to these victimized  animals.  Many  private  organizations  are
declining  to  offer  assistance  in these cases because of the enormous
financial burden of caring for a large number of  animals  for  extended
time  periods  with no assurance of reimbursement for these services. If
there are no resources to care for the animals once they are seized, law
enforcement is less likely to conduct the seizures in the  first  place.
The  legislature  therefore  intends  to implement legislation that will
improve the state's ability to ensure proper security and  reimbursement
for  impounding  organizations  providing care on behalf of the state of
abused animals.

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD07156-02-3

S. 2665--A                          2

  S 2. Paragraph a of subdivision 6 of section 373  of  the  agriculture
and  markets  law,  as  amended  by  chapter 586 of the laws of 2008, is
amended to read as follows:
  a. If any animal is seized and impounded pursuant to the provisions of
this  section,  section  three  hundred fifty-three-d of this article or
section three hundred seventy-five of this article for any violation  of
this  article,  upon arraignment of charges, OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
THEREAFTER, the duly incorporated society for the prevention of  cruelty
to  animals,  humane  society,  pound,  animal shelter or any authorized
agents thereof, hereinafter referred to for the purposes of this section
as the "impounding organization", may file a  petition  with  the  court
requesting that the person from whom an animal is seized or the owner of
the animal be ordered to post a security[. The security] FOR THE REASON-
ABLE  COSTS  OF  CARING FOR SAID SEIZED ANIMALS FROM THE TIME OF SEIZURE
AND IMPOUNDMENT. ANY SECURITY ORDERED FOLLOWING SUCH A HEARING shall  be
in  an  amount  sufficient to secure payment for all reasonable expenses
expected to be incurred by the impounding  organization  in  caring  and
providing  for the animal pending disposition of the charges. Reasonable
expenses shall include, but not be limited to,  estimated  medical  care
and  boarding  of the animal for at least thirty days. The amount of the
security, if any, shall be determined by the  court  after  taking  into
consideration  all of the facts and circumstances of the case including,
but not limited to the recommendation  of  the  impounding  organization
having  custody and care of the seized animal and the cost of caring for
the animal. If a security  has  been  posted  in  accordance  with  this
section,  the  impounding  organization  may  draw from the security the
actual reasonable costs to be incurred by such  organization  in  caring
for the seized animal.
  S  3. Subparagraph 1 of paragraph b of subdivision 6 of section 373 of
the agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 256 of  the  laws
of 1997, is amended to read as follows:
  (1)  Upon receipt of a petition pursuant to paragraph a of this subdi-
vision the court shall set a hearing on the  petition  to  be  conducted
within  ten business days of the filing of such petition. The petitioner
shall serve a true copy of the  petition  upon  the  defendant  and  the
district  attorney.  The  petitioner shall also serve a true copy of the
petition on any interested person. For  purposes  of  this  subdivision,
interested  person  shall  mean  an individual, partnership, firm, joint
stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate  or  other  legal
entity  who  the  court  determines may have a pecuniary interest in the
animal which is the subject of the petition. The  [petitioner]  DISTRICT
ATTORNEY  shall  have  the  burden  of proving by a preponderance of the
evidence that the person from whom the  animal  was  seized  violated  a
provision of this article, UNLESS THE IMPOUNDING ORGANIZATION APPEARS AT
THE  HEARING  AND REQUESTS TO PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE AND MEET SUCH BURDEN
ON ITS OWN BEHALF.  The court may waive for good cause shown the posting
of security.
  S 4. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
have become a law.

Co-Sponsors

S2665B (ACTIVE) - Bill Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:
A5113A
Law Section:
Agriculture and Markets Law
Laws Affected:
Amd §373, Ag & Mkts L
Versions Introduced in Previous Legislative Sessions:
2011-2012: S3806
2009-2010: S3155

S2665B (ACTIVE) - Bill Texts

view summary

Authorizes DA on behalf of impounding organizations to file a petition seeking a security for the reasonable costs for caring for seized animals from individuals convicted of certain animal cruelty and animal fighting offenses.

view sponsor memo
BILL NUMBER:S2665B

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to orders of restitution in certain cases

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To require courts to hold a hearing within a reasonable time to deter-
mine whether the person from whom an animal is seized, or the owner of
the animal, should be ordered to post a security to reimburse the
impounding organization such as a duly incorporated society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound, animal shelter,
or any authorized agents thereof for the cost of expenses for the seized
animal.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:

Section one provides the legislative purpose.

Section two amends paragraph a of subdivision 6 of section 373 of the
agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 586 of the laws of
2008 by providing that within a reasonable time after arraignment, the
impounding organization may file a petition with the court requesting
that the owner of the seized animal be ordered to post a security for
the reasonable expenses. The district attorney prosecuting the charges
may file and obtain the requested relief on behalf of the impounding
organization if requested to do so by the impounding organization.

Section three amends paragraph b of subdivision 6 of section 373 of the
agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 256 of the laws of
1997 by providing certain procedural changes regarding service and
filing of papers. This section provides that the district attorney or
the petitioner shall have the burden of proof.

Section four provides the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION:

Often in cases of animal cruelty, animals are seized by a law enforce-
ment agent and placed in the care of organizations such as shelters,
humane societies, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals
(SPCA) and rescue organizations for the durations of criminal
proceedings. Such organizations have provided costly services to house
and care for these animals, often with little or no reimbursement.

The financial burden of caring for many animals, often for lengthy peri-
ods of time, is forcing some organizations to stop assisting law
enforcement with housing seized animals. Where there is no organization
to care for seized animals, law enforcement is less likely to conduct
seizures and animals remain in abusive situations and conditions.

New York law gives courts discretion to require the defendant in an
animal cruelty case to post a security with the court to cover the cost
to the shelter for the animal's care. Especially if impounding organiza-
tions must first petition the court to order the security posting, many
impounding organizations do not have legal counsel and are unaware that
they have the option to seek this reimbursement.

For example in 2010, 73 horses and over 50 cats were seized from an
individual from Erie County. These animals were placed in the care of
the Erie County SPCA in March of that year, but had to wait for 9 months
until there was a hearing for the security to be set. By the time of the
hearing in December 2010, the SPCA had spent about $600,000 caring for
the horses alone. As of January 2013, the SPCA has spent $1.4 million
and received approximately $300,000 from the defendant.

This bill seeks to ease the financial burden on impounding organizations
that are caring for such animals. It requires that upon arraignment of
charges or within a reasonable time after, the court holds a hearing to
order the owner of the animal(s) to post a security to cover the reason-
able costs of care for the animals from the time of seizure and impound-
ment. For impounding organizations that lack the resources, the district
attorney shall have the burden of proof of evidence, unless the impound-
ing organization requests to do it on its own behalf.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

A.9400, 2010 passed Assembly. A.3166 (Bradley), 2009 passed Assembly.
Same as S.3155 (Johnson C.), 2010, 2009 referred to Agriculture Commit-
tee. A.259, 2011 and 2012, passed Assembly. Same as S.3806 (Ball), 2011
reported and committed to Rules and 2012 referred to Agriculture.

FISCAL IMPLICATION:

None to the state.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

The ninetieth day after it shall have become a law.

view full text
download pdf
                    S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

                                 2665--B

                       2013-2014 Regular Sessions

                            I N  S E N A T E

                            January 23, 2013
                               ___________

Introduced  by  Sens. BALL, AVELLA, ESPAILLAT, HOYLMAN -- read twice and
  ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee  on
  Agriculture  --  committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted
  as amended and recommitted to said committee -- committee  discharged,
  bill  amended,  ordered  reprinted  as amended and recommitted to said
  committee

AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation  to  orders
  of restitution in certain cases

  THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  Section 1. Legislative purpose. Animal cruelty and animal fighting are
serious crimes in New York state. Because crimes against  animals  often
involve  the  seizure of the victimized animals, these cases pose unique
challenges to law enforcement  agencies  throughout  this  state.  These
challenges  involve  arranging  for  the housing and care of the animals
while the criminal case is pending. Private organizations, such as shel-
ters, humane societies and societies for the prevention  of  cruelty  to
animals  have traditionally assisted law enforcement agencies by provid-
ing care for these animals (which preserves  the  "evidence"  seized  in
criminal matters) with little or no reimbursement.
  It  is imperative to the continued prosecution of animal cruelty cases
that these private organizations be reimbursed for the  care  that  they
provide  to  these  victimized  animals.  Many private organizations are
declining to offer assistance in these cases  because  of  the  enormous
financial  burden  of  caring for a large number of animals for extended
time periods with no assurance of reimbursement for these  services.  If
there are no resources to care for the animals once they are seized, law
enforcement  is  less likely to conduct the seizures in the first place.
The legislature therefore intends to  implement  legislation  that  will
improve  the state's ability to ensure proper security and reimbursement

 EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                      [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                           LBD07156-07-3

S. 2665--B                          2

for impounding organizations providing care on behalf of  the  state  of
abused animals.
  S  2.  Paragraph  a of subdivision 6 of section 373 of the agriculture
and markets law, as amended by chapter 586  of  the  laws  of  2008,  is
amended to read as follows:
  a. If any animal is seized and impounded pursuant to the provisions of
this  section,  section  three  hundred fifty-three-d of this article or
section three hundred seventy-five of this article for any violation  of
this  article,  upon arraignment of charges, OR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
THEREAFTER, the duly incorporated society for the prevention of  cruelty
to  animals,  humane  society,  pound,  animal shelter or any authorized
agents thereof, hereinafter referred to for the purposes of this section
as the "impounding organization", may file a  petition  with  the  court
requesting that the person from whom an animal is seized or the owner of
the  animal  be  ordered to post a security. [The security] THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY PROSECUTING THE CHARGES  MAY  FILE  AND  OBTAIN  THE  REQUESTED
RELIEF ON BEHALF OF THE IMPOUNDING ORGANIZATION IF REQUESTED TO DO SO BY
THE  IMPOUNDING  ORGANIZATION. THE SECURITY shall be in an amount suffi-
cient to secure payment for  all  reasonable  expenses  expected  to  be
incurred  by the impounding organization in caring and providing for the
animal pending disposition of the  charges.  Reasonable  expenses  shall
include,  but  not be limited to, estimated medical care and boarding of
the animal for at least thirty days. The amount of the security, if any,
shall be determined by the court after taking into consideration all  of
the  facts  and  circumstances of the case including, but not limited to
the recommendation of the impounding  organization  having  custody  and
care  of  the  seized animal and the cost of caring for the animal. If a
security has been posted in accordance with this section, the impounding
organization may draw from the security the actual reasonable  costs  to
be incurred by such organization in caring for the seized animal.
  S  3. Subparagraph 1 of paragraph b of subdivision 6 of section 373 of
the agriculture and markets law, as amended by chapter 256 of  the  laws
of 1997, is amended to read as follows:
  (1)  Upon receipt of a petition pursuant to paragraph a of this subdi-
vision the court shall set a hearing on the  petition  to  be  conducted
within  ten business days of the filing of such petition. The petitioner
shall serve a true copy of the  petition  upon  the  defendant  and  the
district attorney IF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS NOT FILED THE PETITION ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. The petitioner shall also serve a true copy of
the petition on any interested person. For purposes of this subdivision,
interested  person  shall  mean  an individual, partnership, firm, joint
stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate  or  other  legal
entity  who  the  court  determines may have a pecuniary interest in the
animal which is the subject of  the  petition.  The  petitioner  OR  THE
DISTRICT  ATTORNEY  ACTING  ON  BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, shall have the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the  evidence  that  the  person
from  whom  the  animal was seized violated a provision of this article.
The court may waive for good cause shown the posting of security.
  S 4. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day  after  it  shall
have become a law.

Comments

Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.

By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.