Penny’s Law – Slow Down, New York! by Kenneth Phillips

(Beth Clifton collage)

Penny’s Law – slow down,  New York!

By Kenneth Phillips

Editor’s note:  On May 3,  2025 in New York City,  New York,  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.

The attack created political momentum toward the passage of new legislation,  previously covered by ANIMALS 24-7 on May 13,  2025.

(See Dog Bite lawyer Kenneth Phillips to NY: Enforce the laws already on the books.)

Pamela Jane Rock.
(Facebook photo)

Some of this momentum appears to carried over into support for similar legislation in other states.  Florida governor Ron DeSantis,  for example,  on May 21,  2025 signed into law the “Pam Rock Act,”  named for 2022 pit bull victim Pamela Jane Rock.

(See New Florida “Pam Rock Act” might not have saved pit bull victim Pam Rock.)

Unfortunately,  as Kenneth Phillips pointed out in our May 13,  2025 article,  what is needed in New York City and New York state is not so much new legislation as the will on the part of city and state authorities to enforce as written the laws that already exist.

Further,  both in New York and in other states,  if new laws are to be introduced,  those laws should address the holes in existing law,  not compound previous errors and omissions with further faults.

Below,  Kenneth Phillips,  the senior dog law specialist in the world,  updates and reviews the legal problems raised by the proposed Penny’s Law,  many of them also incorporated into other proposed legislation in other cities,  counties,  and states.

Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips (DogBiteLaw.com)

–––––––––––––––––

In the wake of the horrific attack on a small dog named Penny in New York City, a new law has been proposed to fill serious gaps in the criminal code.  Penny’s Law aims to hold dog owners accountable for dangerous behavior—both their own and by their dogs.

The current draft of the proposed new law is missing a few key provisions:  it does not require the owner of an attacking dog to try to stop an attack that is in progress,  and it does not require him or her to provide rabies vaccination information on the spot.

The proposed law also reinforces the outdated idea that “dogs are property,”  limiting the measure of damages for injured pets—something many find offensive.  It even limits the amount of compensation that a human dog bite victim should receive.

Pit bulls who mauled Penny, and allegedly earlier mauled two shih tzus.

“Reckless handling of a dog”

Worse,  the new crime of “reckless handling of a dog” is unconstitutionally vague.  It criminalizes “allowing” a dog to attack,  but does not specify the mental state that would make a dog owner guilty.  Do you “allow” an attack when you tell your dog to “sic ‘em!”  Of course!  Or do you “allow” an attack when your gate isn’t latched and your dog pushes through it to get at another dog?  The current draft doesn’t answer this question,  so it would probably be held to be void.

It would be a fair guess that none of these consequences were intended.  They are the kind of oversights that typically happen when there is a rush to judgment.

New York lawmakers need to slow down and pass a reasonable, effective law,  because the control of dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners is necessary for not only New Yorkers, but people in cities all over the U.S.A.

Dangerous dogs are not just a New York problem:  they are a problem everywhere.  Every city, town, and county in the U.S. is grappling with how to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners. Penny the Chihuahua may be the face of this story,  but the real issue is bigger:  it is about how communities across America protect themselves,  their pets, and their children from violent, preventable dog attacks.

The following is an up-to-date review of the facts we now know,  and a critique of the May 2025 version of Penny’s Law.

Pit bull owners flee Penny mauling.

What the pit bull owners did wrong

The pit bulls that mauled Penny had previously killed another dog.  The Health Commissioner then ordered the owner of the pit bulls—allegedly Joseph Columbo—to muzzle the dogs in public and to walk them one at a time.

The owner ignored both orders.

He also failed to carry a break stick (used to pry open a dog’s jaws),  made no effort to stop the mauling, and even interfered with the rescuers.

Instead of helping,  his female companion videoed the attack on her cellphone while he argued with rescuers.  Then they fled the scene.

Lauren Claus and Penny.
(Facebook photo)

Their actions violated two New York criminal laws

New York has two criminal provisions that appear to be applicable in Penny’s case:

• NYC Health Code:  Disobeying a Health Commissioner’s order can result in up to on year in jail.
• Agriculture & Markets Law § 353 (Animal Cruelty):  Makes it a Class A misdemeanor to “permit any animal to be unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed.”  This is a strict liability crime—no excuses.  The penalty is up to one year in jail.

The New York City Police Department initially reacted to Penny’s mauling by shrugging it off.  They told Lauren Claus,  Penny’s owner,  that dogs are considered property under the law, so there was nothing the police could do.  But that was totally incorrect.

New York has a very good “dangerous dog law,” Agriculture & Markets Law § 123.  It says:

• Any witness can report a dangerous dog directly to a judge.
• If the judge finds probable cause, the dog must be seized immediately.
• A full hearing must be held within five days.
• Penalties can include euthanasia, confinement, and civil fines.

Additionally, the state has Agriculture & Markets Law § 117 that requires officers to seize any dog who poses an immediate threat.

The Agriculture and Markets Law applies to the entire state of New York, not just New York City.  It’s a state law that covers dangerous dogs and a wide range of agricultural and food-related issues across all 57 counties of New York.

Penny. (Lauren Claus Instagram photo)

Prevention is possible without a new law

The tragedy that befell Penny could have been prevented without a new law:

• Better law enforcement: The New York City Police Department initially told Penny’s walker that they “couldn’t do anything.” That is false.  Police are required to take reports of dangerous dogs and advise victims of their rights.
• More animal control officers: The city needs to increase staffing so they can follow up on prior incidents and enforce existing laws.
• Better public cooperation: With more than 1,300 calls per year about off-leash dogs in New York City,  good dog owners must step up and follow the rules to reduce the burden on the system.
• Voluntary muzzle use: Owners of high-risk breeds should be encouraged to muzzle their dogs in public.
• Greater awareness when small dogs are around pit bulls: Pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs.  Only a very small percentage of pit bulls attack people or pets. Nevertheless,  90% of domestic animals killed by dogs are killed by pit bulls.

Penny’s Law has major loopholes

Penny’s Law creates a new crime called reckless handling of a dog. It would make it a crime to “allow” a dog to attack another dog. But the current draft falls short in key areas:

• Failure to stop an attack is not criminalized.
  Once the attack begins, the law does not make it a crime to fail to stop it. That is a big loophole.
• It isn’t clear what it would take to “allow” a dog to attack.
  The law doesn’t define “allow.” This creates ambiguity about the mental state (intent) and actions required for criminal liability.
• There is no requirement to give rabies vaccination info after an attack.
  While Penny’s Law says you must report an attack, it doesn’t require immediately providing rabies vaccination records.  This matters because about one-third of dog-on-dog attacks result in bites to the owner,  and knowing rabies vaccination status is critical for human health decisions made in the emergency room immediately after an attack.
• A victim’s right to compensation is unfairly limited. The current draft says a handler has to reimburse the victim for only “medical or veterinary expenses.” Human dog attack victims also suffer from other losses such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, loss of income,  disfigurement, disability,  broken glasses,  and torn clothing.  And when a dog is injured or killed,  there are similar effects on its owners. The traditional measure of compensation for dog owners is the property value of the dog,  but it’s clear that the public no longer wants dogs to be evaluated as mere property.

(Beth Clifton collage)

Using the word “allow” is a major flaw

Using the word “allow” is a major flaw. The standard for culpability — legal blame — is unclear. “Allow” could imply intentional, reckless, negligent, or even strict liability.

Without specifying the mental state, people may be criminally charged even when they:

• Had no knowledge of their dog’s tendencies
• Took reasonable steps to restrain the dog
• Were not present at the time of the attack

Vague laws can violate the Due Process Clause by failing to give ordinary people clear notice of what conduct is criminal. If someone doesn’t know what it means to “allow” an attack, they can’t reasonably be expected to comply with the law.

Police or prosecutors might interpret “allow” too broadly, leading to unfair charges against responsible dog owners whose leashes broke, and the prosecution of people who were not even there when the attack occurred.

(Beth Clifton collage)

A better,  simpler approach for Penny’s Law

A better approach would base reckless handling of a dog on three simple elements:

• The dog was trained or known to be aggressive;
• The owner acted negligently in allowing the encounter.
• The dog caused harm.

Pennys Law would thus criminalize failure to stop an attack,  failure to give rabies vaccination information,  and negligently allowing a victim to encounter a dog that was trained or known to attack.

These simple measures would protect people and animals—without casting an unfair net over responsible dog owners.

Kenneth Phillips.

Final thoughts

The owner of the pit bulls that mauled Penny appears to have violated two criminal laws,  and the dogs themselves may be subject to seizure under existing statutes.  Pursuing those legal avenues could deliver some measure of justice for Penny.  Additionally,  Lauren Claus should be awarded full reimbursement for her dog’s veterinary expenses through court-ordered restitution.

Preventing similar attacks does not require sweeping new legislation.  New York already has strong laws in place.  Failure to stop an attack,  and the duty to give rabies vaccination information,  should be addressed by modifying the current New York laws.  The new crime,  if deemed necessary to create a new crime,  should be simple and clear,  letting people know exactly what conduct will expose them to jail time.  Thus, Penny’s Law would protect people and animals without casting an unfair net over responsible dog owners.

Beth & Merritt Clifton with friends.

We owe it to Penny to use every means at our disposal to prevent similar attacks on our friendly dogs. Let’s do it right.  The nation will benefit by the good example set by New York.

Please donate to support our work:

More related posts: