Frequently Asked Questions

As a result of so many animals being sold with health problems, several states have passed laws which provide consumers with remedies if they purchase a sick dog or cat from a pet dealer (which includes pet stores and some breeders). New York’s law (General Business Law, section 753) states that:

1. If within 14 business days following the sale of a dog or cat by a pet dealer or receipt of a written notice explaining consumers’ rights under the pet sale law, whichever occurred last, a licensed veterinarian certifies in writing that the dog or cat was unfit for purchase due to illness or because the animal is showing signs of a contagious or infectious disease, or
2. If within 180 calendar days following purchase or receipt of a written notice explaining consumers’ rights under the pet sale law, whichever occurred last, a licensed veterinarian (of the consumer’s choice) certifies in writing that the dog or cat was unfit for purchase due to a congenital malformation which adversely affects the health of the animal, the consumer shall have the following options:
   1.  The right to return the animal and receive a refund plus reasonable veterinary costs related to the veterinarian’s certification that the animal was unfit for purchase; or
   2. The right to return the animal and receive an exchange animal of the consumer’s choice of equivalent value and reasonable veterinary costs directly related to the veterinarian’s certification that the animal was unfit for purchase; or
   3. The right to keep the animal and to receive reimbursement from the pet dealer (up to the purchase price of the animal) for veterinary services (of the consumer’s choosing) to attempt to cure the animal.

The law provides that intestinal parasites are not grounds for declaring an animal unfit for sale unless the parasites have caused the animal to be clinically ill.

The law further states that purchasers must provide pet dealers with the veterinarian’s certification that the animal was unfit for purchase no later than three business days following receipt by the consumer.

Although a pet dealer cannot reduce consumers’ rights as provided for in the law, it is important for consumers to read their pet sale contracts.

NY’s pet sale law is not applicable to humane organizations that are tax exempt pursuant to section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code and are registered with the Department of Agriculture and Markets.

Very important to note is that in addition to pet sale laws, there are other laws, including, for example, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which provide remedies to consumers who purchase goods (including animals) from a merchant (a person who regularly sells the goods, such as a pet store or breeder). These laws may be very useful to purchasers of sick animals, particularly if the time limitations specified in the pet sale law have expired.

For further information, see NY’s General Business Law, Article 35-D. Additional NY laws governing pet dealers are contained in many other laws, including, for example, Article 26-A of the Agriculture and Markets Law and in local laws, including, for example, NYC Administrative Code, 17-371 through 17-382, 17-1701 through 17-1709, 17-804, 17-814, and 17-815. California and some municipalities in New York and throughout the country have passed laws to prohibit pet stores from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits, although the pet stores may make space available for humane organizations to adopt out animals.

Sometimes Small Claims Court is the fastest and most cost effective way to attempt to resolve a monetary dispute regarding the sale of a sick animal. The state Attorney General’s office may also review disputes regarding sales of sick animals: https://ag.ny.gov/online-complaint-form-pet-lemon-law.

Sadly, many animals sold at pet stores come from puppy mills, large commercial breeding facilities where animals are warehoused in deplorable conditions. Animals used for breeding often spend years at these facilities. At the same time, there is a serious overpopulation of dogs and cats. So many wonderful animals are waiting to be adopted. Rather than purchasing an animal, please visit your local shelter or contact a rescue group to adopt.

Courts have awarded monetary damages to people whose animals were negligently harmed at a grooming facility, kennel, or veterinary hospital (and elsewhere). If the act was intentional, the perpetrator may also be ordered to pay punitive damages (which is basically a civil “fine” for egregious behavior) and would likely be subject to criminal charges for cruelty to animals. Sadly, since many courts still view animals as property, animals’ “parents” do not typically receive significant compensation for their loss. Generally, compensation for emotional distress or loss of companionship is not awarded. However, there have been a few cases where courts considered more than the property value of the animal. For example, in one NY case, involving the death of a dog at a boarding facility, the court stated, in part:

Although the general rules and principles measure damages by assessing the property’s market value, the fact that Ms. Brousseau’s dog was a gift and a mixed breed and thus had no ascertainable market value need not limit plaintiff’s recovery to a merely nominal award. Although the courts have been reluctant to award damages for the emotional value of an injured animal…, the court must assess the dog’s actual value to the owner in order to make the owner whole…The court finds that plaintiff has suffered a grievous loss… Plaintiff testified that she experienced precisely the kind of psychological trauma associated with the loss of a pet that has received increased recent public attention… As loss of companionship is a long-recognized element of damages in this State…the court must consider this as an element of the dog’s actual value to this owner…Brousseau v. Rosenthal, 110 Misc.2d 1054 (Civ. Ct., NY County 1980).

Some NY courts have also held that “the proper measure of damages in a case involving injury suffered by a pet animal is the reasonable and necessary cost of reasonable veterinary treatment.” Zager v. Dimilia, 524 N.Y.S.2d 968 (Just. Ct. Village of Pleasantville 1988).

In addition, every state has a veterinary licensing board that accepts complaints. In New York, The New York State Education Department Office of the Professions reviews such complaints. Veterinarians found guilty of misconduct may be fined, and/or have their licenses suspended or revoked. For further information, contact the Department at 800-442-8108; www.op.nysed.gov.

Generally, it is legal in New York for an animal left for treatment, board, or care to be withheld pending payment, as long as the animal is being provided with necessary care (such care must be provided even if the bill has not been paid). However, there is a mechanism under NY law (Agriculture and Markets Law, sections 331 and 332) for animals left for boarding, treatment, or care at a veterinary hospital, boarding facility, or elsewhere, to be deemed abandoned.

Once the animal is deemed abandoned, the facility or person with whom the animal was left can release the animal to a humane society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or pound. However, prior to doing so, the law requires that very specific notices to the animal’s “parent” be given. If the notices are given and the animal’s “parent” responds in the time period provided in the law (and letter), the animal may not be withheld from his/her “parent” even if the “parent” does not pay the bill. The kennel, veterinarian, or other person with whom the animal was left for care may still have a claim against the animal’s “parent” for the services rendered, but the animal cannot be held “hostage” pending payment.

People should also keep in mind that not everyone who is subject to the law is aware of the law or follows it. Therefore, it is very important for people to pick up their animals on time and to inquire about costs before leaving an animal in the care of another person or facility. Individuals should also review the boarding and/or treatment agreements that they sign.

The NYC Bar Association published an informative brochure on this topic: www2.nycbar.org/Publications/rex-home.htm

The person who adopted or purchased the animal is often (but not always) in a better position to prove “ownership” of the animal, particularly if the animal was adopted or purchased before the individuals moved in together. However, if litigated, other facts will also be considered. For example, was the animal given to one of the individuals as a gift? Under whose name is the animal licensed or microchipped? Who is listed as the “owner” in veterinary records? Was the animal abandoned by one of the disputing individuals? Who is the animal’s primary caretaker and who pays for the animal’s food, grooming, veterinary care, etc.? Evidence that one of the parties moved out and left the animal for an extended period of time and did not share in the expenses for the animal’s care during this time or visit the animal may be considered by a court in determining if one party abandoned or gave away the animal.

Courts tend not to issue shared pet custody or visitation orders (although they have done so) since animals are still generally considered property. Nevertheless, on occasion, courts will consider the interests of the animal. In fact, a growing number of states, including NY, have passed laws requiring courts to consider the best interests of animals in divorce and legal separation proceedings. In NY, see Domestic Relations Law, section 236, Part B, 5 (d) (15). Also, in one notable New York cat custody case not involving a married couple, the court stated: “Cognizant of the cherished status accorded to pets in our society, the strong emotions engendered by disputes of this nature, and the limited ability of the courts to resolve them satisfactorily, on the record presented, we think it best for all concerned that, given his limited life expectancy, Lovey, who is now almost ten years old, remain where he has lived, prospered, loved and been loved for the past four years.” Raymond v. Lachmann, 264 A.D.2d 340 (1st Dept 1999).

Ideally, individuals would enter into written agreements specifying who will get the animal(s) in the event the relationship ends. When there is no such agreement (and there rarely is), the disputing individuals should set aside their differences and agree on a custody arrangement that is in the best interests of the animal.

When a person believes that his/her animal is being wrongfully withheld, he/she can commence a civil lawsuit for the return of the animal or for money. These cases can get complicated so an attorney should be retained if at all possible. The police tend not to get involved in pet custody disputes between roommates, friends, and family members, although they occasionally do if there is sufficient evidence that an animal was stolen.

There are state and local laws in New York and elsewhere that require the payment of a fee to redeem an animal from a municipal shelter or city-funded shelter (commonly referred to as impoundment fees). Some localities (including NYC) have also enacted laws which prohibit shelters from releasing dogs or cats for adoption or to their “parents” unless the animals are spayed or neutered. There are some exceptions in the NYC law, including, for example, if the animal’s life would be jeopardized by spaying/neutering, if the animal has a timely breed show record or completed requirements for Champion or equivalent status, or if the dog is a police or service dog. See NYC Administrative Code, 17-804.

It is generally best to reclaim an animal quickly and pay the redemption fee even if the animal’s “parent” believes the fee is excessive. Fees can increase the longer an animal is impounded. If not redeemed in the time specified in the laws, it is also possible that under certain circumstances the animal will be adopted to another person or euthanized. See Agriculture and Markets Law, section 117; Laws of 1894, Chapter 115, as amended, an unconsolidated NY law applicable to NYC. If an individual believes that he/she was overcharged, there will still be time after the animal is home to attempt to get a refund.

Generally when an individual sells or gives his/her animal away, such individual has no further legal claim to that animal (unless there was an agreement specifying such rights). It is important for people to carefully consider whether they can provide a humane forever home for an animal before adopting or purchasing an animal and it is also important for people to consider whether they want to sell or give away their animal, before, not after, doing so. People should carefully screen potential adopters/purchasers.

In NYC, animal abuse/neglect complaints should be made to the police at 311. If the situation is particularly dire, call 911. In the rest of the state, enforcement of animal cruelty laws varies by county. For example, in Nassau County, the Nassau SPCA and the District Attorney’s Animal Crimes Unit investigate complaints. In other counties, people should contact the police (who are authorized throughout the state to enforce the criminal laws which prohibit the mistreatment of animals). People should also contact their local SPCA (many also enforce these laws), animal control officers, and sheriff’s office.

Animal cruelty/neglect is illegal in every state. In addition to general animal cruelty/neglect laws, there are NY laws (most contained in Article 26 of the Agriculture and Markets Law) regulating shelter for dogs, banning animal fighting, abandonment, and theft, leaving companion animals in vehicles in extreme heat and cold, cruelly transporting animals, and more. There are also local laws which address the mistreatment of animals. For example, several municipalities, including NYC, have laws restricting the tethering/chaining of dogs. NYC’s tethering law provides, in part, that it is unlawful to tether a dog for more than three continuous hours in any continuous twelve hour period. See NYC Administrative Code, 17-197.

It is important for people to make provisions in a will and/or trust for the care of their animals. Every state has have enacted laws which specifically permit trusts for the care of animals. See NY Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, section 7-8.1. An attorney should be consulted to draft these provisions. It is important to speak with the person to whom the animal will be bequeathed and trustee to make sure that they are willing to undertake this responsibility. Alternate individuals should also be named in the event the first named person dies or is unable to carry out his/her responsibilities.

Alternatively, individuals can leave a bequest to a charitable organization for the care of their pets. Some humane organizations have specific programs to care for companion animals whose “parents” have died. A minimum bequest may be required. In order to make an informed decision about what is best for their animal, it is important for people to visit the facilities and to ascertain if their animal will be placed for adoption or kept by the organization for the animal’s life.

Will/trust provisions directing the euthanasia of an animal upon the death of the animal’s “parents” have not been upheld by some courts as being against public policy. One such case is In re Capers’ Estate, 34 Pa. D. & C.2d 121 (Pa. Orph. Ct. 1964).

There is a transitional period between the time a person dies and a will is probated so that period should also be considered in estate planning. In addition to providing for their companion animals in a will or trust, people should keep pet care instructions in their wallets and leave pet care instructions in a prominent place in their homes in the event of an emergency.The New York City Bar Association published a detailed pamphlet on this issue: www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/8_20072453-ProvidingforYourPetintheEventofDeathHospitalization.pdf.

Rights depend on a variety of factors, including, for example, lease language, laws, the type of housing (such as public, private, rent regulated), and whether the animal is an assistance animal (such as a service or an emotional support animal).

While many leases contain no-pet provisions, not all do. Therefore, it is important for people to carefully read their leases and housing rules and regulations. Even tenants with no-pet lease clauses may have the right to keep pets. In New York City and Westchester County, for example, there are laws which limit the right of landlords, co-ops, and some condos to enforce no-pet lease provisions. The laws essentially provide that if a tenant in a multiple dwelling keeps a pet or pets openly with the knowledge of the landlord (owner) or owner’s agent (that could include security personnel, doormen, porters, supers, etc.) and the owner does not commence a legal proceeding to enforce the no-pet lease provision within three months, the provision is deemed waived for that particular animal. See NYC Administrative Code, 27-2009.1; Westchester County Code, Part IV, Article 695. Courts have interpreted the law to allow landlords this three month period each time a tenant gets a new pet.

Also important to note is that tenants living in rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments generally have greater lease renewal rights than tenants living in unregulated housing and that could affect the way a tenant may choose to handle eviction threats based on the keeping of an animal.

The NYC and Westchester no-pet lease clause waiver laws do not apply to public housing. Under federal law, tenants in public housing can have one or more pets but the law allows public housing authorities to set “reasonable” requirements for the keeping of pets, including, for example, the payment of a nominal pet deposit, limitations on the number of animals in a unit, and prohibitions based on size and weight. See 42 USC 1437z-3; 12 USC 1701r-1.

Very important to note is that individuals with physical or emotional disabilities have additional rights in most housing. Pursuant to the Federal Fair Housing Act and other laws, persons with disabilities may not be denied the right to keep emotional support or service animalz regardless of the animals’ breed or weight and may not be charged an extra fee to keep the animalz. There are very limited exceptions to this right, such as if the animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others that cannot be reduced or eliminated to an acceptable level (HUD Notice: FHEO-2020-01, Issued January 28, 2020). Therefore, individuals with physical or emotional disabilities may be able to keep their animals even if their lease or house rules ban pets or limit the size or breed of animals allowed to be harbored.

Sometimes a letter from a health care professional stating that the individual has a disability and that a support animal is needed to help the individual with major life activities, to enable the individual to better deal with his/her limitations, to more fully enjoy his/her dwelling unit, and to improve his/her daily functioning, will resolve a housing dispute about the keeping of the animal. Complaints regarding discrimination in housing may be made to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):

www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/online-complaint

Phone: 800-669-9777

Consulting with an attorney first can be helpful.

Individuals with legal issues concerning animals in housing should consult immediately with an attorney if at all possible. People should NOT assume that they have no rights simply because they signed a no-pet lease or their co-op or condo has rules prohibiting or restricting pets.