New York

Displaying 81 - 90 of 193
Titlesort descending Summary
New York Revised Statutes 1866: Chapter 783: Sections 1-10


Chapter 783, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of animal cruelty," concerns New York's Law on animal treatment for 1866. 

New York Revised Statutes 1867: Chapter 375: Sections 1-10


Chapter 375, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of animal cruelty," concerns New York's law on animal treatment for 1867. 

New York Revised Statutes 1874: Chapter 12: Sections 1-8


Chapter 12, entitled "An act relating to animals," concerns New York's Law about the treatment of animals from 1874.

Nigro v. New York Racing Ass'n, Inc.


An experienced exercise rider sued the owner of a race track seeking damages for personal injury after the horse she was riding fell on her while crossing a gravel-strewn asphalt road. The Supreme Court held that the rider assumed the risk that the horse might fall by choosing to cross the road despite being aware of the danger. The doctrine of “primary assumption of the risk” applied, and the owner of the premises was not at fault.

Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Tommy v. Lavery The Petitioners, including the Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc . filed two petitions for habeas corpus relief on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, two adult male chimpanzees. The petitions stated that chimpanzees are intelligent, have the ability to be trained by humans to be obedient to rules, and to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities. Therefore, chimpanzees should be afforded some of the same fundamental rights as humans which include entitlement to habeas relief. The Respondents, included Tommy’s owners, Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc. and its officers, as well as Kiko’s owners, the Primate Sanctuary, Inc. and its officers and directors. The Supreme Court, New York County, declined to extend habeas corpus relief to the chimpanzees. The Petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed and held that:(1) the petitions were successive habeas proceedings which were not warranted or supported by any changed circumstances; (2) human-like characteristics of chimpanzees did not render them “persons” for purposes of habeas corpus relief; and (3) even if habeas relief was potentially available to chimpanzees, writ of habeas corpus did not lie on behalf of two chimpanzees at issue.
Nuijens v. Novy


Plaintiff brought a New York Small Claims Court action seeking recovery of the sum of $254.63, after a licensed veterinarian determined that plaintiff's newly purchased dog was unfit according to Article 35-B of the General Business Law.  Specifically, plaintiff sought damages under two alternate theories: violation of the sale contract's five-day express warranty and violation of the implied warranty of merchantability.  Due to the vet's initial diagnosis, plaintiff did not return the dog.  The court held that plaintiff elected to forgo the express warranty by retaining the dog.  With regard to the implied warranty of merchantability, the court found defendant is not a "person who deals in goods of the kind" to fall within the definition of merchant under the statute.

Nuijens v. Novy Plaintiff brought this action in Small Claims Court for the recovery of $254.63 after purchasing a dog from the Defendant. At the time of purchase, the Defendant gave a five day guarantee to the Plaintiff that if a veterinarian found anything wrong with the dog, the dog could be returned and the Plaintiff would receive a refund. The Plaintiff took the dog to a vet within five days and although she was told that the dog had a urinary infection, the Plaintiff kept the dog. Within 14 days of the sale, the Plaintiff learned that the infection was serious, and she contacted the Defendant requesting a refund under article 35-B of the General Business Law. The Court stated that Plaintiff's cause of action under the General Business Law failed: because it did not give the Plaintiff the right to recover damages, since the statute only covered "pet dealers" or "breeders" who sold more than one litter of animals per year. There was no evidence to indicate that the Defendant sold more than one litter of puppies. Also, because the Plaintiff chose not to return the dog for a refund within five days after learning about the infection, she could not seek recovery for breach of an express warranty (UCC 2-313). Lastly, because the Defendant was not a “merchant" the Plaintiff could not recover for the breach of an implied warranty (UCC 2-314).
NY - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws

The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

NY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes


These New York statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions.  "Animal" includes every living creature except a human being.  A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both.  Exclusions include properly conducted scientific tests, experiments or investigations, involving the use of living animals approved by the state commissioner of health.

NY - Dangerous animal - § 209-cc. Notification of presence of wild animals and dangerous dogs


New York state law requires anyone in possession of dangerous dogs and dangerous wild animals (which include non-human primates, non-domesticated dogs and cats, bears, venomous, constrictors and python snakes, and certain crocodiles) to report the presence of that animal to the clerk of the city, town, or village in which the animal resides. The report must be filed by April 1st every year and must list all of the physical locations where the animal may be kept. The clerk must then notify all local police, fire, and emergency medical service departments of the presence of that animal. Any person who fails to report the presence may be fined up to $250 dollars for the first offense and $1,000 dollars for each subsequent offense. Zoos and other U.S. Department of Agriculture-licensed exhibitors are exempt from the reporting requirement.

Pages