Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 982 N.E.2d 594 (NY 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 982 N.E.2d 594 (NY 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mahoney v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 2025 · confidence medium
Mar. 22, 2023) (citations omitted) (collecting cases); Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Hygiene of City of New York, 20 N.Y.3d 946, 948 (2012) (explaining that the plaintiff must “belong to the class for whose specific benefit the law was enacted”); Flagstar Bank.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Araneta v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
S.D.N.Y. · 2023 · confidence medium
Indeed, plaintiffs must “belong to the class for whose specific benefit the law was enacted.” Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene of City of New York, 20 N.Y.3d 946, 948 (N.Y. 2012) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thrun v. Cuomo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We assume, without deciding, that plaintiffs have standing to bring this action (see Matter of Stray from Matter of Stray from the Heart, Inc. v Department of Health & Mental Hygiene of the City of N.Y., 20 NY3d 946, 948 [2012]; Matter of New York State Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers v Kaye, 96 NY2d 512, 516 [2001]; Matter of Hudson Prop.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thrun v. Cuomo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
We assume, without deciding, that plaintiffs have standing to bring this action (see Matter of Stray from Matter of Stray from the Heart, Inc. v Department of Health & Mental Hygiene of the City of N.Y., 20 NY3d 946, 948 [2012]; Matter of New York State Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers v Kaye, 96 NY2d 512, 516 [2001]; Matter of Hudson Prop.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Stray from the Heart, Inc.
v.
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 11, 2012.
982 N.E.2d 594
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Kaye Scholer LLP, New York City (Catherine St. John, H. Peter Haveles, Jr., Juan Garcia and Joseph Clark of counsel), for appellant., Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Avshalom Yotam, Karen M. Griffin and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for respondents., Jimmy Yan, General Counsel, Office of the Manhattan Borough President, New York City, amicus curiae.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

When a statute or local law does not expressly authorize a private right of action, the inquiry becomes whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the law was enacted, whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose, and whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme (see Uhr v [*948] East Greenbush Cent. School Dist., 94 NY2d 32, 38 [1999]). It is clear from the legislative findings here (former Administrative Code of City of NY § 17-801) that the Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act was enacted for the benefit of the general public in New York City and for the safety of unwanted dogs and cats. Petitioner, an animal rescue organization “whose mission is to rescue, rehabilitate and place homeless dogs with loving new families,” does not belong to the class for whose specific benefit the law was enacted. Rather, petitioner alleges that it did work and bore costs that would have been unnecessary if the City had fulfilled the duty enjoined upon it by operation of that law. While petitioner’s work is commendable, the law does not provide for damages under such circumstances. Assuming, without deciding, that petitioner had standing to seek enforcement of the Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act, it has no private right of action for money damages, the only relief it seeks on this appeal.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.