New York, NY – Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal (D/WF-Manhattan) and nearly a dozen advocates at a New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) opposed the agency’s proposed regulations on the dining with dogs law in comments at a hearing this morning in Queens, NY to oppose. DOHMH has proposed regulations governing the implementation of the dining with dogs law in New York City, which authorizes restaurateurs to allow patrons to bring their dogs with them to outdoor areas of the restaurant. The law, which went into effect in October of last year, was opposed by DOHMH since it was first introduced.

“The regulations proposed by DOHMH make little sense, unless of course the aim is to hinder implementation of the dining with dogs law,” said Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal. “In addition to being nonsensical and unnecessarily burdensome, they would also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York’s Human Rights Law, which protect disabled people who rely on service animals. It’s abundantly clear that the City is acting like a sore loser and did not give much thought to the impact that its proposed regulations would have on restaurants, dog lovers or disabled individuals.”

For the full text of DOHMH proposed regulations, visit https://rules.cityofnewyork.us/tags/dining-dogs.

Full Text of Assemblymember Rosenthal’s Comments:

Good morning. I am Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal and I represent the 67th Assembly district, which includes the Upper West Side and parts of the Clinton and Hell’s Kitchen neighborhoods in Manhattan. As the prime sponsor of the legislation, now law, authorizing operators of food service establishments to allow companion or pet dogs to accompany patrons in outdoor dining areas, it is necessary that I comment on the rules proposed by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH).

Though Section 1352 of the Public Health Law authorizes municipalities to promulgate regulations to govern the implementation of this section, it does not give municipalities the authority to promulgate rules to prevent implementation altogether. Yet, that is precisely what DOHMH has proposed by requiring restaurateurs to confirm the status of dogs' licenses and rabies vaccinations. This requirement, if implemented, would be so onerous for potentially participating food service establishments as to make compliance nearly impossible.

Though New York City law rightly requires that all dogs living within the City limits have a valid license and up-to-date rabies vaccine, according to the DOHMH’s own statistics, only 20% of all dog-owning New Yorkers comply with this regulation. In the past, I partnered with DOHMH and previous mayoral administrations to help improve dog licensing rates in New York City, even allocating state funding for a public service campaign aimed at promoting licensing. Despite this effort, the rates of licensure have not increased, in large part due to a lack of commitment and overly lax enforcement by DOHMH itself.

Placing the burden of enforcing a provision of New York City law that the City itself has never prioritized on untrained staff at food service establishments, many of whom are high school graduates or recent immigrants to this country, is foolhardy. In addition, it is worth noting that New York City does not require its own employees at New York City owned and operated dog runs or public parks to check dog licenses or vaccination status.

DOHMH has proposed that untrained food service establishment staff check the validity of rabies vaccination tags and licenses. Consider a popular restaurant during peak weekend brunch or lunch hours on a mild spring afternoon. The host or hostess is working to seat dozens of patrons, both in and outdoors, and in addition to triaging all manner of patrons' reasonable and unreasonable requests, will now also be required to get down on hands and knees to check licenses and vaccination tags. This is simply ridiculous. Failure to do so would subject the restaurant to a violation from the DOHMH and could also expose it to civil liability.

All responsible dog owners know that they must have a valid dog license and rabies vaccine, as required by New York City law. The burden has always been squarely and rightly placed on the shoulders of dog owners to comply with this section of law. It is unfair to shift that burden to restaurants in an attempt to have private businesses help to enforce a provision of New York City law that the City has failed to enforce for years. Doing so now makes little sense, unless of course the aim is to frustrate implementation of Section 1352 of the New York State Public Health Law.

In addition, it has come to my attention that DOHMH has recently begun sending paper dog license renewals, instead of new tags, to owners. The new paper renewals will further complicate restaurants' compliance since untrained staff would be required to check tags for some dogs and paper licenses for others. Sadly, even the most responsible of dog owners fails to carry around a copy of their dog’s license at all times. This requirement could have the effect of barring dogs that are licensed and vaccinated, if the owner simply forgot the paperwork at home.

The signage requirements of Section 1352 of the Public Health Law were written carefully with an eye toward compliance with the American with Disabilities Act and New York Human Rights Law. I worked closely with advocates from the disability community and my colleagues in government with expertise on these issues to ensure that the signage required by this law clearly indicated that service animals, and not merely dogs, could, as always, enter any part of the food service establishment, and not merely the outdoor areas. The regulations proposed by DOHMH effectively erase this important distinction, which was a hard-fought victory for the disability community, and will make it more difficult for service animals to be accommodated in restaurants. Without a clear statement about the important distinction between service animals and companion dogs, the proposed regulations further confuse restaurant staff, who now will be required to check the tags of some dogs, the paperwork of others and who are prohibited by law from checking the tags or licenses of any service animals. The proposed signage requirement is antithetical to the spirit and letter of the Americans with Disabilities law, and must be removed on these grounds alone.

Given the obvious problems that the proposed regulations pose for restaurants and the difficulty they will cause for disabled individuals who rely on service animals, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that DOHMH put very little thought into the impact that this requirement would have. While I understand that DOHMH did not support ‘dining with dogs’ since its inception, it is now New York State law. As such, DOHMH has a responsibility to follow the law and implement reasonable regulations that are tailored to protect human health but do not have a chilling effect on future compliance with the law. I urge DOHMH to reconsider the proposed regulations and support New York City restaurants and dog lovers alike who have demanded that they be permitted to dine with their dogs.