Mission
Care Counts is an independent campaign for stronger companion-animal custody protections in New York, for all pets and the people who care for them.
The context
New York has not ignored companion animals. Domestic Relations Law §236(B)(5)(d)(15) already directs courts to consider a companion animal's best interest when deciding possession in matrimonial cases. Animal-welfare considerations also appear elsewhere in state law.
What remains less clear is how that standard works in practice, and how it reaches households outside marriage. Two proposals in the current session address parts of this picture: A740 would reach people who both lived with an animal, and S8927 with its Assembly companion A11651 would list specific care factors in divorce.
Our goal is not to rewrite the law ourselves. It is to encourage New Yorkers and their lawmakers to make care, continuity and safety clear wherever these decisions are made.
Source: NY Domestic Relations Law §236 (opens external source in a new tab)
What we're asking for
Please note: these five points are our advocacy goals. They are not a description of what any individual bill contains. For bill contents, see the legislation.
Who feeds, walks, comforts, trains and takes the animal to the vet is real evidence of a relationship. It should carry clear weight.
Animals depend on routine and familiar people. Decisions should consider continuity of care and the relationships that support well-being.
Pets live with married couples, unmarried partners, roommates and other co-caregivers. Protection should not depend on a marriage certificate.
Decisions should come quickly enough to matter, rest on relevant evidence and include written reasons.
In temporary and final decisions alike, an animal's safety and welfare should stay at the center.
Beyond one household
Different homes. Different circumstances. A shared question: how do we hear the care and connection that shape an animal’s life?
Historical cases and reported disputes. For current New York law and pending bills, see the legislation.
Miniature dachshund
Travis v Murray · Supreme Court, New York County
Two separating spouses both wanted Joey. The court ordered a one-day hearing to consider his care, the time each spouse spent with him, and the life each could offer. This decision gave those questions a hearing, not a final placement.
Our campaign takeaway
Daily care deserves to be heard.
Cat
Also called Sylvester
Finn v Anderson · Jamestown City Court
A couple fed and obtained veterinary care for a cat they believed was stray. A neighbor recognized him as her companion of ten years. Both households loved him. Considering that longstanding relationship and the children’s attachment, the court left him with the neighbor.
Our campaign takeaway
Cats and their established bonds belong in the conversation, too.
Dog
Cromwell v Lashley · NYC Civil Court, New York County
Initially placed with a relative for training, Princess remained there for almost three years. The court considered her physical and emotional care, health, and stable relationships. It ordered that she remain with that caregiver, while recognizing the original owner’s stronger conventional property claim.
Our campaign takeaway
A fuller picture of an animal’s life can matter.
Manhattan shop cat
Reported dispute · 2020
In 2020, a Manhattan plant-shop owner identified as Krstic sought the return of Sammy after temporary pandemic care became a dispute. Contemporary reporting described his distress and his lawsuit seeking Sammy’s return.
Our campaign takeaway
Temporary care needs clear boundaries.
Let care count
It takes about five minutes to find your state lawmakers and send a short, personal note.