Can a New York town contract with a private individual to be its dog control officer?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Gouverneur asked whether it could simply hire an individual under a contract to provide dog control services, rather than appoint an officer-employee. The AG answered no.

Agriculture and Markets Law § 114(1) sets out the framework. Every town, city, and village that issues dog licenses must appoint one or more dog control officers; any other village and any county may do so. The appointee is an official or employee of the municipality. As an alternative or supplement to direct appointment, a municipality may contract for dog control services "with any other municipality or with any incorporated humane society or similar incorporated dog protective association."

That list was exhaustive. The AG noted that nothing in § 114 authorized a contract with an individual. The AG cited 1965 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 75, which construed a substantively similar predecessor statute and concluded a city could not contract for dog warden services with either an individual or a business corporation formed by an individual. The AG revisited and reaffirmed the 1965 conclusion in 1996 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) No. 96-15, and reaffirmed it again here.

The bottom line: a town wanting dog control services must either (a) appoint a dog control officer as a municipal employee or official, or (b) contract with another municipality, an incorporated humane society, or an incorporated dog protective association. Independent-contractor arrangements with private individuals or for-profit corporations were not on the list.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why does it matter whether the dog control officer is an employee?

The AG did not parse the policy reasons, but several explanations recur in the AG's older opinions: accountability for use of police-like authority, civil service compliance, workers' compensation coverage, and the statutory requirement that the officer carry an official badge and identification. An employee arrangement keeps those protections intact.

Could the town contract with a humane society that happens to use one independent contractor?

The statute requires the contracting party to be an "incorporated humane society or similar incorporated dog protective association." The municipality's counterparty is the corporation, not the individual. How that organization staffs itself internally is a separate question, though municipal officials may want to confirm the contracting organization actually carries the indicia of a humane society (incorporation, articles of incorporation referencing animal welfare purposes).

Can two towns combine to share a dog control officer?

Yes, by the express terms of § 114(1): contracts with another municipality are permitted. Towns frequently share dog control services this way.

Could the town hire a private dog catcher under a different statute?

The AG opinion is limited to § 114. Some animal-control activities (rabies control, dangerous-dog hearings) intersect with public health law and might involve other agencies. § 114 is the specific dog control officer statute, and it does not authorize private contracts with individuals.

Background and statutory framework

Agriculture and Markets Law Article 7 governs dog licensing and control. § 114 is the dog control officer statute.

§ 114(1) requires every town, city, and village that issues dog licenses to appoint one or more dog control officers. Any other village and any county may do so optionally. The appointee is described as "an official, employee" of the municipality. The same subdivision allows a municipality to contract with "any other municipality or with any incorporated humane society or similar incorporated dog protective association" for these services. The AG read the list as exhaustive because the statute provided no general contracting authority.

Citations

• Agriculture and Markets Law Article 7 (dog licensing and control).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 114 (dog control officer appointment and contracts).
• Agriculture and Markets Law § 114(1) (specific list of permissible contracting counterparties).
• 1965 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 75 (city may not contract with individual or business corporation for dog warden services).
• 1996 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) No. 96-15 (reaffirming 1965 opinion).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_2000-17_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

Opn. No. 2000-17
AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW, ART. 7, § 114.
A town may not contract with an individual for dog control services. A town may appoint a dog control
officer or enter into a contract with another municipality, an incorporated humane society or
incorporated dog protection association for dog control services.
August 24, 2000
Henry J. Leader, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Gouverneur
P. O. Box 13
Gouverneur, New York 13642-0013

Informal Opinion
No. 2000-17

Dear Mr. Leader:
You have asked whether under Agriculture and Markets Law § 114 a town may contract with an
individual for dog control services.
Each town and city, and each village in which dog licenses are issued, must appoint, and any other
village and any county may appoint, one or more dog control officers for the purpose of controlling dogs
and for enforcement of article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law. See Agriculture and Markets Law
§ 114(1). As stated in section 114(1), the appointee would be an official/employee of the municipality.
Instead of, or in addition to, the appointment of a dog control officer or officers, a municipality may
contract for dog control officer services "with any other municipality or with any incorporated humane
society or similar incorporated dog protective association." Id. There is no authority for a contract with
an individual for these services.
In a prior opinion of this office, we construed a substantively similar predecessor of section 114
and concluded that a city may contract with neither an individual, nor with a business corporation
formed by a person, to act as dog warden. See 1965 Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 75. The opinion concluded that
"[u]nless as stated in subdivision 1 of § 120 of the Agriculture and Markets Law, the contracting party is
another municipal corporation, or an incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or an
incorporated dog protective association, a municipality may not enter into such an agreement."
We had occasion to revisit our 1965 opinion in an informal opinion rendered in March, 1996 and
concluded that the 1965 opinion remained valid. See Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) No.96-15. Nothing has been
cited to us to alter that view now.
We conclude that a town may not contract with an individual for dog control services. A town
may appoint a dog control officer or enter into a contract with another municipality, an incorporated
humane society or incorporated dog protection association for dog control services.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State
government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office.

Very truly yours,
LEW A. MILLENBACH
Assistant Solicitor General

Return to the Index Page
Return to the Home Page