Requires each violator of "Buster's Law" to register with the division of criminal justice services
This bill would create a statewide public animal cruelty registry for people convicted of violating New York’s animal cruelty laws commonly referred to as “Buster’s Law” (sections 351 and 353-a of the Agriculture and Markets Law). The Division of Criminal Justice Services would be required to collect and maintain registry information, including at least the registrant’s name and address, and make the registry available in both print and electronic form to the public and to specified enforcement and animal-welfare entities.
People required to register would have to do so annually and whenever they change addresses, and would remain on the registry until a court orders otherwise. Before a court could end the registration requirement, the person would have to show psychiatric or psychological testing demonstrating, by clear and convincing evidence, that they have the mental capacity and ability to own and properly care for an animal humanely. The bill also bars registrants from owning companion animals or working in settings where companion animals are present, such as shelters, pounds, pet stores, zoos, and similar businesses, and imposes a mandatory $50 annual surcharge to fund the registry.
The bill would amend the Agriculture and Markets Law by adding a new section 352 and would create a new statewide regulatory scheme for animal cruelty offenders. It would expand the role of DCJS into maintaining a public registry and would impose new collateral consequences on convicted persons, including registration duties, public disclosure, restrictions on animal ownership and employment, and a surcharge. It would also preempt local laws by making the statewide registry applicable to all municipalities, including New York City, and superseding any local animal cruelty or abuser registry laws.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broad sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsor request, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and animal-protection initiative, with an emphasis on preventing repeat abuse and informing the public and animal-related businesses. The absence of recorded votes or discussion means there is no formal evidence here of support or opposition beyond the bill text itself.
The main points of contention likely concern privacy, due process, and the breadth of the restrictions imposed on registrants. The bill makes the registry public and imposes ongoing reporting duties, employment bans, and a prohibition on owning companion animals, which could be viewed as punitive and potentially overbroad. Another likely issue is the requirement for psychiatric or psychological testing before a court can terminate registration, as well as the bill’s express preemption of local regulation, which may draw concern from municipalities or advocates of local control. Animal welfare advocates, humane societies, and law enforcement are the entities most likely to support the measure, while civil liberties or rehabilitation-focused critics may object to its scope.