N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Education / TITLE The Professions / ARTICLE Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health Technology
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Education Law § 6701 (2026)

Definition of practice of veterinary medicine

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 6701. Definition of practice of veterinary medicine. The practice of
the profession of veterinary medicine is defined as diagnosing,
treating, operating, or prescribing for any animal disease, pain,
injury, deformity or dental or physical condition, or the subcutaneous
insertion of a microchip intended to be used to identify an animal.
"Animal" includes every living creature except a human being.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, no provisions
of this section shall be construed to include the floating of equine
teeth as being within the practice of veterinary medicine.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1987–2009 · leading case: Brown v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 60 A.D.3d 107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 60 A.D.3d 107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 6× ““Veterinary medicine” is defined in Education Law § 6701, in relevant part, as “diagnosing, treating, operating, or prescribing for any animal disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition.”
Gross v. Ambach, 522 N.E.2d 1043 (N.Y. 1988). “” Contrary to petitioner’s claim that medicine may be practiced only on living patients, the statute contains no such limitation (compare, Education Law § 6701 [practice of veterinary medicine defines "animal” as "every living creature except a human being”]).”
Gross v. Ambach, 126 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). “Indeed, if the Legislature had intended such a result, it could have included the word "living” in the provision in question as it did when defining the practice of veterinary medicine (see, Education Law § 6701). Respondents’ interpretation of the statute which defines the…”
Ratusch v. Attas, 3 Misc. 3d 763 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Here, the gravamen of plaintiffs action is that defendant engaged in veterinary professional malpractice which resulted in damage to her property, a Maltese dog.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.