Dog Bite lawyer Kenneth Phillips to NY: Enforce the laws already on the books

Hue and cry for “Penny’s Law” after pit bulls maul Chihuahua in New York City overlooks laws already in place

NEW YORK,  New York––Indifferent policing,  dismissive animal control policies,  irresponsible pit bull owners,  and serial pit bull attacks on both pets and people packed a May 7,  2025 New York City town hall meeting,  four days after a pit bull with prior history of mauling other dogs maimed a Chihuahua named Penny,  pet of Upper West Side resident Lauren Claus,  in a videotaped incident broadcast and otherwise covered by most major New York City media.

Especially infuriating meeting attendees was the reported position of New York City law enforcement that “Under current New York state law,  dogs are defined as property,  and as such,  an attack by one animal on another is regarded as a property crime and not a criminal matter,”  unless a human is somehow directly involved,  for example urging one dog to attack another.

Similar attacks occurring all over the country

Similar incidents in which pit bulls serially kill and maim other pets and injure people,  but remain at large in the possession of their owners were already in the news in Cincinnati,  Ohio,  where a pit bull on March 18,  2025 killed a Yorkshire terrier named Chosen,  belonging to Westwood resident Royal Turner,  and in Broward County,  Florida,  where a pit bull named Hercules,  belonging to one Wilford Morris,  injured three dogs and two humans in separate attacks over a year’s time.

Morris was issued citations carrying fines totaling more than $3,000,  WPLG weekend evening news anchor Jacey Birch told viewers,  but Hercules had still not been impounded.

Animal control agency spokespersons in each instance claimed their hands were tied by legal stipulations protecting dogs as property that can only be seized through complicated legal procedures.

The Penny case was not unique in New York City,  either,  except in that the video generated vastly more public attention and concern than any of the other 1,300 dog-off-leash-running-amok reports received by New York City 311 operators in the first four months of 2025 alone.

Lhasa Apso was victim days earlier

Monica Reyes described to WABC and New York Post reporter Anthony Blair how two pit bulls tore apart her eight-year-old Lhasa Apso days earlier “just yards from her front door in the Throggs Neck Houses,”  Blair wrote,  after which “The man and woman with the pit bulls ran away, Reyes said.”

The time-honored and traditional political approach to public outrage over a crime,  unfortunately,  is to promise legislation named after the victim,  which will usually only replicate existing legislation,  generate favorable publicity for the politicians involved,  and then stall somewhere in the legislative process,  but even if passed,  will usually then be unenforced and forgotten about until a similar incident raises a similar hue-and-cry.

Ohio bill seeks to restore law weakened in 2012

At least three bills to reinforce Ohio dog law have been introduced in the 2025 legislative session,  at urging of Republican governor Mike DeWine,  of which one by Republican state representative Kevin Miller appears to have the best chance of passage.

The Miller bill,  according to his web page summary of it,  would allow dog wardens to immediately impound dogs who “have killed or seriously injured a person,  after due process,”  and “Mandates the euthanasia of” such dogs.

Both provisions reinstate authority that dog wardens already had,  before the Ohio dog law was weakened in 2012,  removing language defining pit bulls as “inherently vicious,”  therefore requiring pit bull owners to keep their pit bulls behind secure fences,  muzzled in public,  and insured against liability.

Since the 2012 deletion,  Ohio has experienced 25 human fatalities by dog attack,  21 of them by pit bull.

“Reclassifying animals as sentient beings”

A similar circuitous,  redundant,  and probably ultimately ineffective legislative response to the Penny attack seems to be underway in New York City,  as opposed to simply enforcing existing law as written.

“Upper West Side Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal had already introduced a bill,”  wrote Gus Saltonstall of WestSideRag.com,  which “would alter a section of state law containing animal cruelty crimes by reclassifying animals as ‘sentient beings,’  not as property,  allowing them to be considered as victims of crimes.”

While Rosenthal took the opportunity to hype her bill,  rated zero chance of actual passage, that it could in any way expedite removal of dangerous dogs from the streets,  even if passed,   is unlikely.

“Penny’s Law”

More likely to advance,  “Penny’s Law,  introduced by Assembly member Jenifer Rajkumar this week, seeks to create criminal offenses for careless owners — including ‘cruelty to animals through negligent handling of a dog’ and ‘leaving the scene of an animal attack,’”  explained New York Post writer Nicole Rosenthal on May 8, 2025.

“The state legislation would also impose harsher penalties for those who repeatedly violate city leash laws,”  Rosenthal said,  which means less than doggy doo-doo if New York City police continue not responding to 300-400 “dog off leash” calls per month.

Further,  the pit bulls who killed Penny were leashed at the time.

Enough of that @#$%,  Dog Bite Law attorney and blogger Kenneth Phillips said in somewhat more refined terms in a May 12,  2025 video response to the arguments for Penny’s Law,  posted at https://youtu.be/DCAY9__1Y4w?si=4ZtzUgbuMO85AFdx

Cops said “This is a civil matter”

Began Phillips,  “Let’s approach this by asking the questions that New Yorkers are posing right now because of what happened to Penny,  the dog.

“It was reported that the New York City Police Department said,  ‘This is not a crime.  The penalties are not criminal.  This is a civil matter,  and we can’t do anything.’”

Also reported,  Phillips mentioned,  is that the New York City Police Department either refused to take a report about the Penny mauling,  or failed to take action after the report was filed.

What existing law says

“Look at Section 123 of the [New York State] Agriculture & Markets Law,”  Phillips advised.  “It says this in Section 1 of 123,  part 1:

Any person who witnesses an attack may make a complaint of an attack upon a person or companion animal (and other animals as well) to a dog control officer or police officer.

“It also says this:

“Such an officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his or her right to commence a proceeding.”

“In other words,  a court proceeding.

“And if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog,”  which there was,”  Phillips noted,  “The officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself or herself.”

“Someone isn’t aware of the law”

“Penny’s owner is saying the New York City police department refused to take a report or refused to handle this in a judicial manner,  and denied that the law allows the police to get involved.

“But clearly that is not the case,”  Phillips pointed out.  “Someone isn’t aware of the law or doesn’t understand what’s in the law.

“Can Penny’s owners or anybody who jumped in to rescue Penny,  for that matter, file a complaint to the court?”  Phillips asked rhetorically.  “In other words,  bypass the police if they have to?

“Part two of that same law,  Section 123 of the New York State Agriculture & Markets Law,  says this:

“Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack may,  and any dog control officer or police officer shall,  make a complaint under oath or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or threatened attack.”

“You can bypass the police & complain to the court”

“In other words, when you witness it,  you yourself can bypass the police and make the complaint to the court.”

Further,  Phillips explained,  Section 123 of the Agriculture & Markets Law stipulates that,

“The judge shall immediately determine if there’s probable cause to believe that the dog is a dangerous dog,  and if so, shall issue an order to any dog control officer or police officer directing such officer to immediately seize such dog and hold the same pending judicial determination.”

“In other words,”  Phillips said,  “if the judge feels there is probable cause,  as in the Penny case there obviously was,  the judge can tell the police,  “Go grab the dog,  and let’s hold on to it until there is a hearing.

“What happens if the judge is skeptical and doesn’t think that there’s probable cause?

“The judge has to hold the hearing anyway”

“The judge has to hold the hearing anyway within FIVE DAYS!

Because Part 2 of Section 123 says this:  Whether or not the judge finds there’s probable cause for such seizure, he or she shall,  within 5 days,  hold a hearing on the complaint.

“If satisfied that the dog is a dangerous dog,  the judge shall order neutering or spaying of the dog,  microchipping of the dog, and one or more of the following consequences as deemed appropriate under the circumstances and as deemed necessary for the protection of the public.”

“What follows,”  Phillips enumerated,  “is a list of seven things that can happen to the dog and its owner.  They include the following:

• Confining the dog so it can’t escape or interact with the public
• Keeping the dog leashed when in public
• Muzzling the dog when in public
• Having liability insurance up to $100,000
• Covering personal injuries or death caused by the dog
• A professional evaluation of the dog’s temperament
• Training or retraining the dog

“Aggravating circumstances”

“In addition to that,”  Phillips continued,  “under some circumstances—called aggravating circumstances,”  spelled out in Part 3 of Section 123—the judge can order the dog to be put down or permanently confined.

The aggravating circumstances,  which Phillips said “don’t apply in Penny’s case,  include that The dog,  without justification,  attacked a person and caused serious physical injury or death;  has a known vicious propensity, as evidenced by a previous unjustified attack;  and The dog, without justification, caused serious physical injury or death to a companion animal, farm animal, or domestic animal, and did so again within two years.

Actually,  both of the latter two “aggravating circumstances” apparently did apply in the Penny case,  since the pit bulls who mauled her allegedly had recently attacked other dogs,  but this was not known at the time.

“In Penny’s case,”  Phillips acknowledged,  “the owner of another dog believes her dog was killed by the same pit bulls. That would make those pit bulls dangerous dogs,”  by New York state legal definition,  “even without a prior court hearing.

Animal cruelty law could also apply

“But there is another law that can also apply,”  Phillips continued.  “It’s the one I would use if I were prosecuting:  New York’s animal cruelty law.

“This is Section 353 of the Agriculture & Markets Law.  It says:

A person who permits any animal to be unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

“A Class A misdemeanor in New York is a criminal offense that carries a sentence of up to a year in jail—364 days.

“Now,  there are a few nuances to Section 353,”  Phillips said.

“Section 353 is a criminal strict liability law.  In other words,  a person can be found guilty simply by permitting an animal to be injured,  maimed,  mutilated,  or killed.

“You don’t need knowledge,  negligence,  intent,  or recklessness.  If you permitted it,  you’re liable.

New application

“I haven’t found a case where Section 353 was applied to a dog-on-dog attack,”  Phillips conceded.  “So applying it in Penny’s case would be a first.

“Whenever a law is applied for the first time,  there is a risk of appeal and of new loopholes being created by appellate courts.”

However,  Phillips pointed out,  “There is always a first time a law is applied.  I recently won a big case that applied a new law I proposed 20 years ago.”

Concluded Phillips,  “Are we getting the right picture about Penny’s Law?  Do we need a new law for Penny’s case?  Or are we getting misinformation?”

New law could disable existing law

Also to be mentioned is that any time a new law is passed,  it may be written in such a manner as to supersede and even weaken the legislation already on the books.

This is what happened in Ohio in 2012,  when legislation touted by the pit bull advocacy organization Animal Farm Foundation,  based in New York state,  and endorsed by then-Ohio Dog Wardens Association president Mark Kumpf,  was said to be making Ohio dog law more effective and more easily enforceable.

Instead,  the 2012 legislation disabled Ohio dog law,  with a rapidly mounting body count of both dogs and humans ever since.

Please donate to support our work:

More related posts: