Skip Navigation   My NYSBA | | Join | Renew | Web Survey | FAQ | Online Store | Search
New York State Bar Association
Committee on Animals and the Law
Committee At a Glance
Mission Statement
Committee Roster
Animalaw Blog
Animals in the News
Laws & Paws Newsletter
Making A Difference Report
Animal Week Resources
Disaster Preparedness
Endangered Species Day
Animal Law Courses (Offered by Law Schools & Other Entities)
Past Programs
Teen Animal Cruelty Program
Teleseminar - Michael Bean
Teleseminar - Steve Chandler
Teleseminar - Zoo Story
Legal Resources
Animal Law Resources
Animal Protection Laws of New York State
Animal Cruelty
Damages
Dangerous Dogs
Enforcement
Eviction - Harboring Animals
Horse Injuries
Horse Racing
Right to Appeal
Shelters - Reimbursement
NYS Humane Education Law
Representing Shelters
Statutes
Companion Animal Laws
Legislative Information and Reports
Members Only Section
Student Writing Competition
Upcoming Events
Site Map
JOIN / RENEW
LOGIN
SITE MAP
JOBS/CAREERS
 
THE NEW YORK
BAR FOUNDATION

Legal Ease Brochure 

Series

Downloadable Forms

Bridge the Gap Ad  
July 19 and 20 2011

Shelters - Reimbursement

Ayres Memorial Animal Shelter, Inc. v. Montgomery County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 37 A.D.3d 884, 828 N.Y.S.2d 726, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 00706 (3 Dept., 2007)

Under a contract with the Town of Root, Plaintiff was required to shelter animals seized within the Town.  Approximately 20 animals were brought to Plaintiff’s animal shelter.  Defendants who participated in the raid seizing the animals denied Plaintiff’s requests to take some of the animals or to reimburse the Plaintiff for their care.  Plaintiff brought an action for reimbursement for costs to care for the animals that continued to be kept at their shelter.  The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, which the Appellate Division affirmed. 

Plaintiff asserted that Agriculture and Markets Law §373(4) authorized reimbursement from the Defendant, not just the owners of the animals since it stated that “…all necessary expenses incurred in taking charge of such property shall be a charge thereon.” Since that refers to the society or police department that organized the seizure, and thus the agency that assumes custody had a cause of action against the organizers.  The Court disagreed finding that the statute only permitted recovery against the person arrested who is in charge of the animal.  Reading Section 4 in conjunction with Section 6 of the statute, where an impounding organization can file a petition requesting reimbursement from the owner or person in charge of the animal, it was evident that there was a mechanism created by the Legislature to provide for reimbursement of costs.