New York Assembly Bill A00633

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/8/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Requires the owner of any place or establishment where animals or fowls are slaughtered or butchered for food to reimburse costs associated with capture and return or rescue and rehabilitation of escaped animals.

Summary

This bill would add a new section to the Agriculture and Markets Law creating liability for owners of facilities where animals or fowls are slaughtered or butchered for food when an animal escapes from the premises. If an escaped animal is recovered by law enforcement, animal control, or a private person engaged in animal rescue and then delivered to a municipal animal control or rescue facility, the facility owner would be responsible for reimbursing the municipality and related local agencies for the costs of capture and return, or rescue and rehabilitation. The bill also imposes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each escape incident, with the penalty to be donated to the municipal or county shelter in the city or county where the escape occurred. As an alternative to paying the civil penalty, the owner of the slaughter or butcher facility may relinquish ownership of the escaped animal. The measure takes effect immediately upon enactment.

Impact

The bill would expand state law by creating a new enforcement and cost-recovery mechanism specifically tied to escaped animals or fowl from slaughter or butcher facilities. It would make facility owners financially responsible for municipal and local government expenses related to capture, transport, rescue, rehabilitation, and return, and it would authorize a separate civil penalty payable to local shelters. The practical effect would be to shift some public and shelter costs onto the operators of these establishments and to create a new statutory obligation under the Agriculture and Markets Law.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available context suggests a straightforward policy proposal rather than a contested measure with documented legislative opposition or support. The bill’s framing indicates concern for public costs and animal welfare, particularly the burden placed on municipalities and rescue organizations when escaped animals are recovered. Because no transcripts or voting history are provided, there is no evidence in the record supplied here of formal sentiment from lawmakers beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is who should bear the financial responsibility when an animal escapes from a slaughter or butcher facility: the public sector and rescue organizations, or the facility owner that housed the animal. Supporters are likely to emphasize reimbursement of municipal costs, accountability for facility operators, and support for shelters and animal rescue efforts. Opponents may question the fairness of imposing automatic liability and a fixed civil penalty, especially in cases where the escape may have been accidental or where compliance costs could be significant for businesses. The option to relinquish ownership in lieu of the penalty may also raise questions about enforcement and animal disposition.