Pet stores sue to block New York’s ‘Puppy Mill Pipeline’ law, set to take effect Dec. 15

Four New York pet stores and a pet store owner have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block a ban on the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits at pet stores set to take effect in the state on Dec. 15.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, seeks a judgment declaring unconstitutional the “Puppy Mill Pipeline Law,” enacted in December 2022, and a permanent injunction against implementation and enforcement of law.

The plaintiffs, operators of pet stores in Suffolk, Nassau, Kings and Bronx counties, allege that the state law violates the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it is not a “rational means” to achieve a “legitimate legislative purpose.” 

Their complaint argues that federal and state laws already on the books adequately protect animals and consumers. The “Puppy Mill Pipeline Law,” banning retail sales of companion animals by pet stores, will force responsible pet stores out of business, according to the complaint, without evidence that it will improve the health of animals or protect consumers better than existing laws and regulations do.

“Pet Stores already abide by the strictest standards for sourcing their animals. Law-abiding pet stores work with licensed, reputable, humane breeders to ensure the health and well-being of the animals in their care,” the complaint states. 

“A blanket ban on pet sales will force these responsible pet stores out of business and put their employees out of work, creating an unnecessary burden on our community and economy while fueling a black market where roadside sales are already happening,” the complaint states.

That has been the effect of a similar law passed in California, Northport attorney Jonathan Gill, whose law firm brought the action on behalf of the pet stores, said in an interview Friday evening.  

California in 2017 became the first state in the nation to enact a ban on the retail sale of dogs, cats and rabbits by pet stores. Its law took effect in January 2019.

New York’s law is modeled after the California statue, Gill said. All the California law did was “drive the black market puppy mill underground,” he said.

A Los Angeles Times investigation this year found that the state’s law banning the retail sale of companion animals by pet stores “had a major unintended consequence — driving the puppy trade further underground.”

Many dogs sold as locally bred in California actually come from “profit-driven mass breeders” in the Midwest and are resold in an underground market “by people claiming to be small, local home breeders,” according to the Times.

Further, the Times investigation found, the state was destroying veterinary records that provide details about a pet’s origin and health status, according to a report published by the paper on Sept. 12, Inside California’s brutal underground market for puppies: Neglected dogs, deceived owners, big profits.

Like the California law, New York’s “Puppy Mill Pipeline Law” doesn’t go to the heart of the problem, Gill said, and will have the same unintended consequences.

“It will put a lot of legitimate businesses out of business” and grow an unregulated underground market where unscrupulous resellers buy dogs from out-of-state breeders and sell them to unsuspecting purchasers, Gill said.

New York’s law, which passed both chambers of the State Legislature by wide margins in June 2022 and was signed into law by the governor that December, was hailed by animal advocates, who said it would close an important pipeline for pets bred in conditions they described as cruel and inhumane.

“The passage and signing of the Puppy Mill Pipeline law — which has been a longstanding goal for animal welfare groups across the state — is a historic win for New York’s animals, consumers, and communities,” Matt Bershadker, ASPCA’s president and CEO said after Hochul signed the bill in December 2022. “By ending the sale of cruelly bred puppy mill dogs in state pet shops, New York is shutting down the pipeline that enables retail sellers and commercial breeders to profit from unconscionable brutality.”

Assembly Member Jodi Giglio, who voted for the “Puppy Mill Pipeline Act,” says she has grown concerned by reports of the unintended consequences of California’s similar law and would now like to see the effective date of New York’s law delayed.

Both Giglio and Gill said they were contacted by the pet store owners in September. 

Giglio said she is concerned that shelters and rescues will be overloaded with pets surrendered or abandoned by people buying them from unscrupulous dealers who source the animals from out-of-state puppy mills.  They will be transacting purchases “on the side of the road” and will not know that they are buying from puppy mills. When the animals get sick and purchasers realize the expense of caring for them, purchasers “will surrender the pets or set them free,” Giglio said.

The state already has laws to ensure that pet stores are reputable and humane and that they acquire animals from reputable and humane breeders, Giglio said. The state needs to enforce its laws, she said. 

“The only way to shut down the puppy mill pipeline is to identify the bad actors, weed them out and have New York State hold the USDA accountable,” Giglio said.

Giglio called a news conference in Hauppauge Nov. 15 to voice “strong opposition” to the “Puppy Mill Pipeline Law” because it does not provide “a real solution” to the problem of puppy mills and has a potentially devastating impact on reputable pet stores, who rely on pet sales for 80% of their income, she said.

“There’s no reversing the law,” Giglio acknowledged Friday night. 

“Only a chapter amendment could change it.” And a chapter amendment requires a vote of the legislature, which would require both chambers of the State Legislature to return to Albany to debate and vote. 

Giglio said she met with the governor’s staff about it on Wednesday. At this point, only intervention by a court could prevent the law from taking effect. “There’s nothing else that can be done,” she said.

Giglio said this week she plans to re-introduce a bill she sponsored in the 2021-2022 legislative session that she says is an alternative to the “Puppy Mill Pipeline Act.” It provides a “balanced approach to animal welfare by focusing on transparency, accountability and consumer protection.”

Giglio’s bill, which died in committee in the 2021-2022 session, would require a veterinarian to disclose to the Department of Agriculture and Markets the cause of death of a companion animal within six months of purchase from a pet dealer, if the cause of death was from illness, disease or congenital condition. A veterinarian would be also authorized to disclose any other relevant records about the animal to the state agency.

Giglio’s bill would require the State Department of Agriculture and Markets to develop a public rating system for pet dealers, so consumers know the store’s reputation. It would also require pet dealers to reimburse consumers if an animal dies within six months of purchase.

Law-abiding pet stores work with licensed, reputable, humane breeders to ensure the health and well-being of the animals in their care, Giglio said. 

Gill said he hopes the court will hear his clients’ case before Dec. 15 and grants the preliminary injunction.

“We’re not going to be able to unring the bell” once the ban takes effect, he said. 

Local fight over pet store sales stretches back more than a decade

Pet stores have been at odds with animal rights groups and animal shelters over regulations and proposed laws banning the sale of companion animals by pet stores for more than a decade locally.  Each time local laws were proposed, both sides staked out positions similar to the arguments currently being made. Both sides are vehement. Pet store owners argue that they are already heavily regulated and only deal with reputable breeders who are also regulated by federal and state agencies. Animal advocates argue that most, if not all, animals sold by pet stores come from disreputable breeders who place profits over animal welfare.

Suffolk County considered such a law in 2011, but after hours of public hearings, its sponsor withdrew the bill on the advice of the county legislature’s attorney, because state law  precluded local legislation that would restrict or altogether ban the retail sale of puppies at pet stores.

The state enacted a law in 2014 that authorized local municipalities to adopt their own laws regulating or licensing pet dealers. 

In June 2014, Suffolk became the first municipality to regulate the sale of pets under the new law. Suffolk’s law does not ban the sale of dogs by pet stores or dealers, but prohibits the stores and dealers from selling pets originating from breeders who have received violations from recent inspections conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). It also prohibits the sale of puppies younger than 8 weeks and requires disclosure to consumers about the background of pets offered for sale.

The Riverhead Town Board in 2021 adopted a ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in Riverhead Town.  Riverhead’s law requires stores offering those animals for sale to prove the animals came from animal shelters, animal control agencies, humane societies or nonprofit rescue groups registered with New York State. The town law did not affect adoption procedures at local animal shelters, nor did it prevent individuals from dealing directly with breeders.

Riverhead’s law quickly drew two lawsuits, filed by local pet stores and joined by a pet dealers trade group. The town is prevented by court orders from enforcing the law while the cases are litigated. The cases remain pending in State Supreme Court in Suffolk County.