Source: http://www.nyshumane.org/fact-sheet-memorandum-regarding-the-issue-of-sustenance-including-veterinary-care/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:55:44+00:00

Document:
This memorandum is not intended to provide legal advice or legal services, but simply to provide research information as understood by NYSHA with regard to the issue of sustenance as referred to in Section 353 of Article 26 of the NYS Agriculture and Markets law. Prepared May 2007.
Question Presented: Within the context of Section 353 of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law, is there recently published case law that supports the premise that the word “sustenance” includes medical/veterinary care?
Brief Answer: In People v. Arroyo, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 175 (N.Y.C. Criminal Ct. 2004), the court found that “sustenance” did not include medical care. However, two appellate courts found it did. In People v. Mahoney, 9 Misc. 3d 101, 804 N.Y.S. 2d 535 (2nd Dep´t App. Term 2005), the court found that “sustenance” included veterinary care. In People v. Sitors, 12 Misc. 3d 928, 815 N.Y.S. 2d 393 (Schoharie County Ct. 2006), the court cited People v. Mahoney, supra, in its overturning of a lower court decision regarding appropriate animal care. Thus, appellate court rulings have indicated that veterinary care is included within the meaning of sustenance. And though those rulings are not controlling at the Appellate Division, they provide persuasive guidance on this topic. Also, of interest is an older case, Jones v.Beame, 56 A.D.2d 778 (1st Dep´t 1977), in which the trial court decision regarding the inclusion of veterinary care as part of “sustenance” was left intact.
Facts: Sustenance is a problematic concept within the context of Section 353. Because it is not defined in the Section 350, it has been subject to interpretation.
Discussion: The issue to be determined is whether a defendant can be successfully prosecuted under Section 353 for failing to provide medical care to an animal who is in need of it. The following cases are relevant to the issue.
In March 2004, in People v. Arroyo, supra,the defendant´s dog was suffering from terminal cancer and had an apparently painful tumor on its body. The defendant chose not to provide medical care for various reasons. The trial court ruled that the defendant could not be charged with not providing medical care for the animal because Section 353 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of the case and specifically that the word “sustenance”did not afford notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that he or she is obligated to provide veterinary care to a terminally ill animal.
The trial court in People v. Arroyo, supra, determined that the concept of “sustenance” as used in Section 353 did not include medical care. However, subsequent to that decision, two appellate courts in People v. Mahoney, supra, and in People v. Sitors, supra, found differently.
Though these were intermediate appellate courts, one within the Second Department, the other within the Third Department, both found that “sustenance” included the concept of providing medical/veterinary care to an animal. The decisions are not controlling, except for those lower courts in the direct appellate chain of the courts that rendered those decisions, but they are persuasive. Therefore, these cases could be used to argue that “sustenance” includes medical/veterinary care. Further, in People v. Mahoney, supra, the court did not state that any authority figure has to dictate that a person provide medical care to an animal in order to find a person guilty of not providing such care. The court simply found that the trial court was correct in defining “sustenance” to include veterinary care and adequate shelter to maintain adequate health and comfort. Also, though Jones v. Beame, supra, is an older case, that trial court also determined that the lack of veterinary care provided to animals in city zoos constituted a viable cause of action for a civil suit.
Thus, it can be argued that a person who deprives an animal of medical/veterinary care or neglects or refuses to furnish it medical/veterinary care is guilty of a violation of Section 353 of Article 26 of the Agriculture and Markets law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.