Can a New York town's list of licensed dogs be used at the animal shelter to redeem a seized dog instead of requiring the owner to produce the actual license?

Plain-English summary

The Town of Peru asked whether its animal shelter could simply check a town-maintained list of licensed dogs (rather than asking owners to produce their physical paper license) when an owner came to redeem a seized dog. Agriculture & Markets Law § 117 requires the owner to "produce proof" of licensure, but doesn't say what counts as proof. The shelter wanted a workflow that didn't depend on every dog owner carrying their license paperwork.

The Attorney General's office concluded that a town list could be part of a valid redemption process, but couldn't substitute for everything. The 1978 amendment that removed the explicit requirement to produce the dog's license signalled that the Legislature contemplated other forms of proof. A consistently and accurately maintained list of licensed dogs would let the shelter verify license status. But the owner still has to confirm their own identity, and if the dog was seized without its identification tag, the owner has to prove they own the specific dog (typically by producing the tag itself or other ownership evidence).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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.

Historical context

What the opinion meant for towns running shelters

At the time, the opinion gave towns flexibility to design redemption procedures around their own records rather than around an owner's ability to produce a paper license. The recommended workflow was a three-part check: confirm the owner's identity, look up the owner on the licensed-dog list, and either inspect the identification tag on the dog or, if it wasn't wearing one, require additional proof of dog ownership. Done correctly, this satisfied the "produce proof" standard in § 117(4) and (6).

What the opinion meant for dog owners

Owners of dogs seized in the town would not be sent away simply because they had lost or misplaced their physical license paperwork, provided the town had instituted a list-based verification process. But the burden of proving ownership of the specific dog (especially when the dog was seized without its tag) remained on the owner.

What the opinion meant for legislative drafters

The opinion read the 1978 deletion of the explicit "produce the license" requirement as a deliberate liberalization, allowing alternative proof. That reading would shape how later statutory amendments and local procedures could treat municipal records as a permissible substitute for owner-held documents.

Common questions

Q: Did the Town's list replace the dog's identification tag?
A: No. The list works together with the tag, not instead of it. If the dog is seized while wearing its tag, the owner can use the tag (plus the list, plus owner identity) as proof. If the dog wasn't wearing its tag, the owner needs alternative proof of dog identity, such as producing the tag the dog should have been wearing.

Q: What goes on the licensing application under N.Y. Agriculture & Markets Law § 109?
A: The dog's sex, age (actual or approximate), breed, color, identifying marks, and identification number, along with the owner's name, address, telephone number, county, and town/city/village of residence.

Q: When is a license required?
A: Under § 109(1)(a), every dog owner must license the dog with the licensing municipality. The first time a dog is licensed, the municipality assigns the dog an identification number and provides a tag bearing that number.

Q: What changed in 1978?
A: Before 1978, § 114 (predecessor to § 117) required the owner to produce the dog's actual license to redeem a seized dog. L. 1978, ch. 220, § 2 deleted that requirement, replacing it with the more flexible "produces proof" standard the AG interpreted in this opinion.

Background and statutory framework

New York requires every dog to be licensed by the municipality where the owner resides. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 109(1)(a). The licensing municipality assigns each dog an identification number and provides a tag bearing that number, which the dog must wear when off the owner's premises. Id. §§ 111(1), 117(1)(a). If a dog is seized without its tag, the owner can redeem it within five days upon paying a fee, but only if they "produce proof that the dog has been licensed and has been identified." Id. § 117(4). If a dog is seized while wearing its tag, the owner must "produce proof that the dog was licensed." Id. § 117(6).

The opinion's central insight is that the statutory text says "produce proof" without specifying what kind. The 1978 elimination of the predecessor's explicit "produce the license" requirement was treated as evidence that the Legislature affirmatively intended a flexible standard. From there, the AG inferred that municipal records can supply at least the licensure prong of the proof requirement.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- N.Y. Agriculture & Markets Law § 109(1)(a), (c), (e), (f) (dog licensing)
- N.Y. Agriculture & Markets Law § 111(1) (identification number and tag)
- N.Y. Agriculture & Markets Law § 117(1)(a), (4), (6) (redemption procedures)
- N.Y. Agriculture & Markets Law § 114 (McKinney's 1938) (predecessor statute)
- L. 1978, ch. 220, § 2 (1978 amendment removing license-production requirement)

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/2016-3_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

AGRICULTURE & MARKETS LAW §§ 109(1)(a), 109(1)(c), 109(1)(e), 109(1)(f), 111(1), 114, 117(1)(a), 117(4), 117(6); SESSION LAWS L. 1978, CH. 220 § 2

A consistently- and accurately-maintained list of dogs licensed by a town may constitute a valid component of a system whereby owners redeem their seized dogs by producing proof of the identity of the owner and, if necessary, of the dog.

December 12, 2016

Donald W. Biggs
Attorney for Town of Peru
O'Connell & Aronowitz
206 West Bay Plaza
Plattsburgh, New York 12901

Informal Opinion
No. 2016-3

Dear Mr. Biggs:

You have requested an opinion regarding Agriculture & Markets Law ("Ag & Mkts") § 117(4). This statute relates to a dog owner redeeming a dog that was seized by an animal control officer when the dog was not on its owner's premises and was not wearing its tag with its municipally-assigned identification number. The owner can redeem the dog within five days, upon payment of the redemption fee, provided that he or she "produces proof that the dog has been licensed and has been identified." Ag & Mkts § 117(4). Similarly, the owner of a dog wearing its identification number when it was seized must produce "proof that the dog was licensed" to redeem the dog. Ag & Mkts § 117(6). You have advised that the Town is considering creating and maintaining a list of all dogs licensed in the town and providing the list to the animal shelter. You have asked whether the animal shelter, referring to this list, can return a dog to an owner whose name is included on the list instead of requiring the owner to produce the dog's license to redeem the dog. In essence, you are asking whether the requirement that an owner "produces proof" can be satisfied by reference to a Town-maintained list. As explained below, we are of the opinion that the Town's proposed list could be used in conjunction with other corroboration provided by a dog owner when redeeming his or her seized dog.

The owner of a dog must get the dog licensed. Ag & Mkts § 109(1)(a). The first time a dog is licensed by a licensing municipality (for example, the Town), the licensing municipality assigns the dog an identification number. Ag & Mkts § 111(1). The municipality also provides a tag with the number that is to be always worn by the dog (or at least whenever it is not on its owner's premises). Id. §§ 111(1), 117(1)(a). To license a dog, an owner of record completes an application that includes the dog's sex, actual or approximate age, breed, color, any identifying marks, and identification number, as well as the owner's name, address, telephone number, county and town (or city or village) of residence. Ag & Mkts § 109(1)(c). Upon validation of the application by the licensing officer, the application becomes the license. Id. § 109(1)(e). The licensing officer provides a copy of the license to the owner; a copy also is maintained by the licensing municipality. Id. § 109(1)(f).

In sum, having licensed a dog, the owner of record receives from the licensing officer a copy of the license; he or she also will receive or previously received a tag with the dog's identification number. The license documents the relationship between the owner of record and a dog of a particular description; the identification number, included on both the license and the dog's tag, indicates the specific dog.

Turning to the question of the type of proof that an owner must provide, we note that section 117 does not require that the owner show the license to redeem the dog, it only requires that the owner produces "proof." The statute is silent as to what constitutes adequate proof. A predecessor to section 117 did require that the owner produce the dog's license. Ag & Mkts § 114 (McKinney's 1938). But in 1978, the Legislature eliminated the requirement that an owner produce the dog's license to redeem a seized dog. L. 1978, ch. 220, § 2. In our view, this change in the statutory language indicates that the Legislature contemplated that something other than the actual license could suffice to demonstrate ownership and compliance with licensing and identification requirements. Moreover, section 117's requirement that an owner "produce" proof does not specify the source of the proof and thus does not preclude that proof coming from a government-maintained source, such as the Town's proposed list.

Turning to that list, we assume that it would include the name of the dog's owner of record and the dog's identification number (the dogs on the list, having valid licenses, also presumably will have identification numbers). The list, if consistently and accurately maintained, would allow the animal shelter to determine whether a seized dog currently has a valid license (and, necessarily, an identification number). To redeem a dog wearing its identification tag, the owner of record could show proof of his or her identity; the animal shelter could compare that proof against the Town's list. The owner's proof of identity, the identification tag on the dog, and the presence of the owner's name on the Town's list collectively would confirm the owner of record's ownership of the particular dog and compliance with the licensure and identification requirements. To redeem a dog not wearing its identification tag, the owner of record would have to produce more than proof of his or her identity; he or she would have to prove ownership of the specific dog, for example, by producing the identification tag the dog should have been wearing when it was seized.

In summary, we conclude that a consistently- and accurately-maintained list of dogs licensed by the Town may constitute a valid component of a system whereby owners redeem their seized dogs by producing proof of the identity of the owner and, if necessary, of the dog.

The Attorney General issues formal opinions only to officers and departments of state government. Thus, this is an informal opinion rendered to assist you in advising the municipality you represent.

Very truly yours,

KATHRYN SHEINGOLD
Assistant Solicitor General
in Charge of Opinions