New York

Displaying 121 - 130 of 204
Titlesort ascending Summary
New York Revised Statutes 1829: Title 6: Section 26

The law contained in Title 6, Section 26 of the New York Revised Statutes of 1829 concerns the offense of maliciously killing an animal of another.  The statute describes the type of animals covered and the punishment for killing, wounding, or maiming such an animal.  In addition, the statute also states the punishment for the offense of cruelty to animals.

New York Revised Statute 1881: Chapter 682: Section 26

Section 26 of Chapter 682 from New York Revised Statutes 1881 concerns the treatment of animals by the owner or any other person.  A person found harming such an animal would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

New York Penal Law 1866: Chapter 682: Section 2

Chapter 682 from New York Penal Law of 1866 covers cruelty to animals.  Section 2 from this chapter describes the offense entitled neglect of disabled animals.  The law states the penalty for leaving a disabled or diseased animal to die on any state or city land.  

New York Consolidated Laws 1938: Sections 180-196

Article 16, entitled "Animals", concerns New York's Law about the treatment of animals from 1938.  The act covers such topics as poisoning of animals to abandoning diseased or injured animals.  In addition, the act provides definitions in section 180.

New York Consolidated Laws 1909: Sections 180-196

Article 16, entitled "Animals," concerns New York's Law about the treatment of animals from 1909.  The act covers such topics as the keeping of animals for fighting to abandoning diseased or injured animals.  In addition, the act provides definitions in section 180 for important words such as animal and torture.

Motta v. Menendez

This New York case arose following an incident that occurred on December 13, 2003, in which the appellant's two pit bull terriers entered the petitioner's property, and one of appellant's dogs ("Duke") attacked and injured the petitioner's pet dog. Following a special proceeding, the lower court determined that appellant's pit bull terrier named “Duke” was a dangerous dog and directed that it be destroyed. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division found that the dangerous dog statute in effect on December 13, 2003, did not provide that one dog attacking another was conduct subject to the penalty of destruction (Agriculture and Markets Law former §§ 108, 121).

Mongelli v. Cabral

A couple boarded their pet bird with a couple who groomed and boarded birds while the wife underwent extensive medical treatment.  There was a dispute between the owners and the boarders over whether the bird was a gift or the subject of long-term boarding.  The court found that the boarders had not established that the bird had been a gift.

Mitchell v. Snider This is a case of an unmarried, co-habitating couple that jointly bought a dog and now dispute who should have the dog after the relationship has terminated. Mitchell brought this replevin action against his girlfriend, Snider, to recover possession of Django, their black lab. This court recognized the traditional way to treat such a case is to consider which party has superior possessory right to the dog. However, modern courts have started to recognize a special category of property in pets and have used a 'best for all concerned' analysis to decide who gets the animal. In this case, the court grants judgment for Snider in part because she had been solely responsible for the dog's care for the previous 20 months. No money was awarded to Mitchell because the expenses he paid were an expression of the parties' mutual love and desire to care for the dog.
Mercado v. Ovalle

In this New York case, plaintiff appealed the lower court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a dog bite case. Defendants, a grocery store and its owner, asserted that they did not own the two pit bulls that attacked plaintiff. The only evidence plaintiff presented showing defendants' ownership and control over the dogs were hearsay statements from the mechanic who operated the lot that the dogs guarded. The court found this evidence that defendants occasionally walked and fed the dogs insufficient to show that they "harbored" the dogs. Affirmed.

Matter of Ricco v Corbisiero

Petitioner harness race-horse driver was suspended by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, Harness Racing Division for 15 days for failing to drive his horse to the finish. The driver argued that whipping the horse had not improved his performance. Considering that the horse had equaled his best time, and had lost by only two feet, and that it would have been a violation of the New York anti-cruelty law (Agriculture and Markets Law ( § 353) to overdrive the horse, the court overturned the suspension.