![\"Chihuahua](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.animals24-7.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/Picsart_25-05-12_18-03-51-427-e1747098310723.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n(Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n NEW YORK,\u00a0 New York\u2013\u2013<\/strong>Indifferent policing,\u00a0 <\/strong>dismissive animal control policies,\u00a0 irresponsible pit bull owners,\u00a0 and serial pit bull attacks on both pets and people packed a May 7,\u00a0 2025 New York City town hall meeting,\u00a0 four days after a pit bull with prior history of mauling other dogs maimed a Chihuahua named Penny,\u00a0 pet of Upper West Side resident Lauren Claus, \u00a0in a videotaped incident broadcast and otherwise covered by most major New York City media.<\/p>\n Especially infuriating meeting attendees was the reported position of New York City law enforcement that \u201cUnder current New York state law, \u00a0dogs are defined as property, \u00a0and as such, \u00a0an attack by one animal on another is regarded as a property crime and not a criminal matter,\u201d\u00a0 unless a human is somehow directly involved,\u00a0 for example urging one dog to attack another.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Similar incidents in which pit bulls serially kill and maim other pets and injure people,\u00a0 but remain at large in the possession of their owners were already in the news in Cincinnati,\u00a0 Ohio,\u00a0 where a pit bull on March 18,\u00a0 2025 killed a Yorkshire terrier named Chosen,\u00a0 belonging to Westwood resident Royal Turner,\u00a0 and in Broward County,\u00a0 Florida,\u00a0 where a pit bull named Hercules,\u00a0 belonging to one Wilford Morris, \u00a0injured three dogs and two humans in separate attacks over a year\u2019s time.<\/p>\n Morris was issued citations carrying fines totaling more than $3,000,\u00a0 WPLG weekend evening news anchor Jacey Birch told viewers,\u00a0 but Hercules had still not been impounded.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The Penny case was not unique in New York City,\u00a0 either,\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n Pit bull owners flee Penny mauling.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Monica Reyes described to WABC\u00a0and New York Post reporter Anthony Blair how two pit bulls tore apart her eight-year-old Lhasa Apso days earlier \u201cjust yards from her front door in the Throggs Neck Houses,\u201d\u00a0 Blair wrote,\u00a0 after which \u201cThe man and woman with the pit bulls ran away, Reyes said.\u201d<\/p>\n The time-honored and traditional political approach to public outrage over a crime,\u00a0 unfortunately,\u00a0 is to promise legislation named after the victim,\u00a0 which will usually only replicate existing legislation,\u00a0 generate favorable publicity for the politicians involved,\u00a0 and then stall somewhere in the legislative process,\u00a0 but even if passed,\u00a0 will usually then be unenforced and forgotten about until a similar incident raises a similar hue-and-cry.<\/p>\n Penny.\u00a0 (Lauren Claus Facebook photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n At least three bills to reinforce Ohio dog law have been introduced in the 2025 legislative session,\u00a0 at urging of Republican governor Mike DeWine,\u00a0 of which one by Republican state representative Kevin Miller appears to have the best chance of passage.<\/p>\n The Miller bill,\u00a0 according to his web page summary of it, \u00a0would allow dog wardens to immediately impound dogs who \u201chave killed or seriously injured a person, \u00a0after due process,\u201d\u00a0 and \u201cMandates the euthanasia of\u201d such dogs.<\/p>\n Both provisions reinstate authority that dog wardens already had,\u00a0 before the Ohio dog law was weakened in 2012,\u00a0 removing language defining pit bulls as \u201cinherently vicious,\u201d \u00a0therefore requiring pit bull owners to keep their pit bulls behind secure fences,\u00a0 muzzled in public,\u00a0 and insured against liability.<\/p>\n Since the 2012 deletion,\u00a0 Ohio has experienced 25 human fatalities by dog attack,\u00a0 21 of them by pit bull.<\/p>\n Penny.\u00a0 (Lauren Claus Instagram photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n A similar circuitous,\u00a0 redundant,\u00a0 and probably ultimately ineffective legislative response to the Penny attack seems to be underway in New York City,\u00a0 as opposed to simply enforcing existing law as written.<\/p>\n \u201cUpper West Side Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal had already introduced a bill,\u201d\u00a0 wrote Gus Saltonstall of WestSideRag.com<\/em>,\u00a0 which \u201cwould alter a section of state law containing animal cruelty crimes by reclassifying animals as \u2018sentient beings,\u2019\u00a0 not as property,\u00a0 allowing them to be considered as victims of crimes.\u201d<\/p>\n While Rosenthal took the opportunity to hype her bill,\u00a0 rated zero chance of actual passage, that it could in any way expedite removal of dangerous dogs from the streets,\u00a0 even if passed,\u00a0 \u00a0is unlikely.<\/p>\n More likely to advance,\u00a0 \u201cPenny\u2019s Law, \u00a0introduced by Assembly member Jenifer Rajkumar this week, seeks to create criminal offenses for careless owners \u2014 including \u2018cruelty to animals through negligent handling of a dog\u2019 and \u2018leaving the scene of an animal attack,\u2019\u201d\u00a0 explained New York Post<\/em> writer Nicole Rosenthal on May 8, 2025.<\/p>\n \u201cThe state legislation would also impose harsher penalties for those who repeatedly violate city leash laws,\u201d\u00a0 Rosenthal said,\u00a0 which means less than doggy doo-doo if New York City police continue not responding to 300-400 \u201cdog off leash\u201d calls per month.<\/p>\n Further,\u00a0 the pit bulls who killed Penny were leashed at the time.<\/p>\n Enough of that @#$%,\u00a0 Dog Bite Law attorney and blogger Kenneth Phillips said in somewhat more refined terms in a May 12,\u00a0 2025 video response to the arguments for Penny\u2019s Law,\u00a0 posted at https:\/\/youtu.be\/DCAY9__1Y4w?si=4ZtzUgbuMO85AFdx<\/a><\/p>\n Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips (DogBiteLaw.com)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Began Phillips,\u00a0 \u201cLet\u2019s approach this by asking the questions that New Yorkers are posing right now because of what happened to Penny,\u00a0 the dog.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was reported that the New York City Police Department said, \u00a0\u2018This is not a crime.\u00a0 The penalties are not criminal.\u00a0 This is a civil matter, \u00a0and we can\u2019t do anything.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Also reported,\u00a0 Phillips mentioned,\u00a0 is that the New York City Police Department either refused to take a report about the Penny mauling,\u00a0 or failed to take action after the report was filed.<\/p>\n \u201cLook at Section 123 of the [New York State] Agriculture & Markets Law,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips advised.\u00a0 \u201cIt says this in Section 1 of 123, \u00a0<\/strong>part 1:<\/p>\n 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.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cIt also says this:<\/p>\n \u201cSuch an officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his or her right to commence a proceeding.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cIn other words, \u00a0a court proceeding.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 <\/strong>which there was,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips noted,\u00a0 \u201cThe officer shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself or herself.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Lauren Claus & Penny.<\/strong><\/em> \u201cPenny\u2019s owner is saying the New York City police department refused to take a report or refused to handle this in a judicial manner, \u00a0and denied that the law allows the police to get involved.<\/p>\n \u201cBut clearly that is not the case,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips pointed out.\u00a0 \u201cSomeone isn\u2019t aware of the law or doesn\u2019t understand what\u2019s in the law.<\/p>\n \u201cCan Penny\u2019s owners or anybody who jumped in to rescue Penny, \u00a0for that matter, file a complaint to the court?\u201d\u00a0 Phillips asked rhetorically. \u00a0\u201cIn other words, \u00a0bypass the police if they have to?<\/p>\n \u201cPart two of that same law,\u00a0 Section 123 of the New York State Agriculture & Markets Law, \u00a0says this:<\/p>\n \u201cAny person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack may, \u00a0and any dog control officer or police officer shall, \u00a0make a complaint under oath or affirmation to any municipal judge or justice of such attack or threatened attack.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Pit bulls who mauled Penny, and allegedly earlier mauled two shih tzus.\u00a0 (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIn other words, when you witness it,\u00a0 you yourself can bypass the police and make the complaint to the court.\u201d<\/p>\n Further,\u00a0 Phillips explained,\u00a0 Section 123 of the Agriculture & Markets Law stipulates that,<\/p>\n \u201cThe judge shall immediately determine if there\u2019s probable cause to believe that the dog is a dangerous dog,\u00a0 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cIn other words,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips said, \u00a0\u201cif the judge feels there is probable cause, \u00a0as in the Penny case there obviously was,\u00a0 the judge can tell the police, \u00a0\u201cGo grab the dog, \u00a0and let\u2019s hold on to it until there is a hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat happens if the judge is skeptical and doesn\u2019t think that there\u2019s probable cause?<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cThe judge has to hold the hearing anyway within FIVE DAYS!<\/p>\n Because Part 2 of Section 123 says this:\u00a0 Whether or not the judge finds there\u2019s probable cause for such seizure, he or she shall, \u00a0within 5 days, \u00a0hold a hearing on the complaint.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cIf satisfied that the dog is a dangerous dog, \u00a0the judge shall order neutering or spaying of the dog, \u00a0microchipping 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cWhat follows,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips enumerated, \u00a0\u201cis a list of seven things that can happen to the dog and its owner. \u00a0They include the following:<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cIn addition to that,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips continued, \u00a0\u201cunder some circumstances\u2014called aggravating circumstances,\u201d\u00a0 spelled out in Part 3 of Section 123\u2014the judge can order the dog to be put down or permanently confined.<\/p>\n The aggravating circumstances,\u00a0 which Phillips said \u201cdon\u2019t apply in Penny\u2019s case,\u00a0 include that The dog, \u00a0without justification, \u00a0attacked a person and caused serious physical injury or death<\/em>; \u00a0has a known vicious propensity, as evidenced by a previous unjustified attack<\/em>;\u00a0 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.<\/em><\/p>\n Actually,\u00a0 both of the latter two \u201caggravating circumstances\u201d apparently did apply in the Penny case,\u00a0 since the pit bulls who mauled her allegedly had recently attacked other dogs,\u00a0 but this was not known at the time.<\/p>\n \u201cIn Penny\u2019s case,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips acknowledged,\u00a0 \u201cthe owner of another dog believes her dog was killed by the same pit bulls. That would make those pit bulls dangerous dogs,\u201d\u00a0 by New York state legal definition,\u00a0 \u201ceven without a prior court hearing.<\/p>\n (Beth Clifton collage)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u201cBut there is another law that can also apply,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips continued.\u00a0 \u201cIt\u2019s the one I would use if I were prosecuting: \u00a0New York\u2019s animal cruelty law.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is Section 353 of the Agriculture & Markets Law. \u00a0It says:<\/p>\n A person who permits any animal to be unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.<\/em><\/p>\n \u201cA Class A misdemeanor in New York is a criminal offense that carries a sentence of up to a year in jail\u2014364 days.<\/p>\n \u201cNow, \u00a0there are a few nuances to Section 353,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips said.<\/p>\n \u201cSection 353 is a criminal strict liability law. \u00a0In other words, \u00a0a person can be found guilty simply by permitting an animal to be injured, \u00a0maimed, \u00a0mutilated, \u00a0or killed.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t need knowledge, \u00a0negligence, \u00a0intent, \u00a0or recklessness. \u00a0If you permitted it, \u00a0you\u2019re liable.<\/p>\n \u201cI haven\u2019t found a case where Section 353 was applied to a dog-on-dog attack,\u201d\u00a0 Phillips conceded.\u00a0 \u201cSo applying it in Penny\u2019s case would be a first.<\/p>\n \u201cWhenever a law is applied for the first time, \u00a0there is a risk of appeal and of new loopholes being created by appellate courts.\u201d<\/p>\n However,\u00a0 Phillips pointed out,\u00a0 \u201cThere is always a first time a law is applied. \u00a0I recently won a big case that applied a new law I proposed 20 years ago.\u201d<\/p>\n Concluded Phillips,\u00a0 \u201cAre we getting the right picture about Penny\u2019s Law?\u00a0 Do we need a new law for Penny\u2019s case?\u00a0 Or are we getting misinformation?\u201d<\/p>\nHue and cry for \u201cPenny\u2019s Law\u201d after pit bulls maul Chihuahua in New York City overlooks laws already in place<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nSimilar attacks occurring all over the country<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nLhasa Apso was victim days earlier<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nOhio bill seeks to restore law weakened in 2012<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cReclassifying animals as sentient beings\u201d<\/h2>\n
\u201cPenny\u2019s Law\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nCops said \u201cThis is a civil matter\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a>What existing law says<\/h2>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
(Facebook photo)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\u201cSomeone isn\u2019t aware of the law\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cYou can bypass the police & complain to the court\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cThe judge has to hold the hearing anyway\u201d<\/h2>\n
\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cAggravating circumstances\u201d<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nAnimal cruelty law could also apply<\/h2>\n
<\/a>New application<\/h2>\n