10/26/2026
STATEMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBER JAMES F. GENNARO
REGARDING OPPOSITION TO INTRO. NO. 943-A
This document has been compiled by me to share information about what is playing out now – Speaker Menin is poised to do what the New York City Council has never done before: eliminate a legal and regulated industry.
This industry’s official regulators, the NYC Department of Health and the NYPD Mounted Unit, affirm this industry’s safety record and affirm the humane care of the horses in this industry. This same industry has made reasonable requests for improvements, such as hitching posts and access to water, requests denied by the Central Park Conservancy (CPC).
A few facts about this industry to consider:
• Not one person in this industry has ever been convicted of animal cruelty in the 168-year history of the NYC Horse Carriage Industry;
• Not one driver in the history of this industry has ever had his or her horse carriage driver’s license revoked or even suspended;
• Not one horse carriage medallion owner in the history of this industry has ever had his or her medallion revoked or even suspended.
• The industry has endured 18 years of NYCLASS spreading false narratives that the horse carriage industry is inherently cruel and has a bad safety record.
Why would the Speaker do this?
The tragic death of Romanch Mahajan was shocking and heartbreaking, and I cannot imagine the overwhelming loss to his family, and again, I offer my condolences. It is understandable that the Speaker, like many others, was stunned by this tragedy. However, rather than wait for a full investigation to be completed, the Speaker and the Health Committee Chair put out a joint statement on the day that Romanch died, declaring that it was “time to act” to pass Ryder’s Law (as it was then known) and that statement was immediately followed by the release of a scripted video on location in Central Park announcing the Speaker’s decision, followed by interviews with The New York Times and the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. The Speaker declared that this bill would be passed.
Even at the Health Committee hearing on this bill on July 15, the Speaker’s opening statement was that the vote was decided. That does not, in my opinion, conform to the essence of the legislative process. That is not a call to invite discussion and collaboration from Council Members or stakeholders.
But let us take a moment to reflect on the tragedy that cemented the Speaker’s intention to pass this bill. At the time that the horse carrying the Mahajan Family bolted, the driver had the horse “in hand” by the reins, as required by Local Law 10 of 2010, which I authored. Neither the driver nor anyone associated with the carriage industry was criminally charged, and no violations were issued to the industry.
But something prompted that horse to bolt that led to this tragedy. At the Health Committee hearing on July 15, compelling testimony was presented about the potentially deadly phenomenon of “stray voltage” in the Cherry Hill area of the carriage route, where this tragedy began. The nature of stray voltage is that it is intermittent, not constant. Con Edison dispatched workers to evaluate the stray voltage, and it was confirmed that it was affecting the Cherry Hill section of the park as well as many other areas of the park. Con Edison maintained a huge deployment of personnel and equipment until the park was made safe from stray voltage.
The horse carriage industry was not named in the Mahajan family’s lawsuit regarding Romanch’s death. Presumably, the lawsuit named only those the family believed were responsible for the stray voltage.
As stated above, the Speaker made her decision to ban the industry the day of Romanch’s death, before the investigation of this tragedy commenced. But the consequences of her decision are, in my opinion, unacceptable. Facts matter.
There has been mention of “the number of events” in the last year or so involving the carriage industry. What was never considered by the Council was that the actual industry regulators (DOH and the NYPD Mounted Unit) conducted investigations of each incident and, to my knowledge, concurred to not take enforcement action in any of these incidents because the circumstances did not meet the criteria for a violation, let alone serious punitive action (e.g., suspension or revocation of a carriage driver’s license) or a criminal summons for animal cruelty.
If the Council wishes to probe or challenge the findings of the DOH and NYPD in these incidents and the competency of the official industry regulators regarding these incidents, it should hold an oversight hearing and then consider what, if anything, it wants to do – consider a new regulatory paradigm for the industry, enact legislative reforms, etc.
The propagandists wish to dissuade the Council from considering the real record of the carriage industry, while relentlessly pushing their agenda which is not based on fact. The carriage industry’s record is all the more impressive considering that in the past, for many years, the ASPCA did inspections of the industry’s operations in Central Park as well as inspections in the stables – monitoring stable conditions, inspecting horses, inspecting the logbooks that record when horses come and go, making sure the drivers complied with the rules regarding the number of hours any horse can work per day.
And the Council Leadership, unfortunately, despite statements to the contrary, has not dealt with the disposition of the 160 carriage horses, the 200-member immigrant workforce, which is unionized, and the 68 carriage medallions.
Below is my assessment, as an equestrian, of the reality regarding the humane disposition of the horses, followed by my assessment of the audacious displacement of immigrant union-workers from their livelihoods, and the financial responsibility of reimbursing carriage medallion owners.
• HORSES: For the horses, many in the Council have embraced the fantasy espoused by the animal rights community about “horse rescue operations” that don’t exist in sufficient numbers. As an equestrian, I know what’s out there in terms of horse sanctuaries, rescue operations, etc. Horse “rescue” organizations are for horses that are abused, neglected, diseased, or their owner can’t take care of them anymore, etc. Such facilities do the best they can, but don’t have enough capacity to take care of all the horses that need their care, so many horses are turned away. The very worthy goal of these facilities is to make the horses healthy again, and then “adopt them out.” This type of facility is not for NYC carriage horses. First, “our” carriage horses are healthy, and should not be taking scarce “rescue” spots from neglected horses at death’s door. And, more importantly, NYC carriage horses are “draft horses” that are bred to pull a plow. These are NOT saddle horses. They are much more muscular than saddle horses and have much calmer temperaments. NYC carriage horses can never be saddle horses. So, who will take the horses? The industry is now required (thanks to my top-to-bottom comprehensive reform of the carriage industry – Local Law 10 of 2010) to retire any carriage horse after it turns 26 years old. The industry retires about three horses per year. The industry makes financial arrangements with a bona fide horse farm that will take care of the retired horses for the rest of their lives. “Take care” means to house, feed, groom, exercise, provide veterinary care for, etc. This care costs in excess of $25,000 per year per horse, which the industry pays for. And such care is not easy to obtain. Sometimes it takes months to find suitable lifelong accommodation for even one 26-year-old retired horse, despite the industry’s willingness to finance the horse’s care.
So, if the industry is put out of business, there will be no industry money to pay for the retirement of the horses. But “retiring” a young five or six year-old horse who will live another 25 years? It is cruel to turn such horses into “backyard” horses. That is the equivalent of putting a healthy 20 year-old person into a nursing home. That is no life for a horse that is bred to work. This is the problem with the “sanctuary” option. Such horses will die a miserable death way before their time. The independent veterinarian put it best at the Health Committee hearing on July 15 – “a ban on New York City’s horse carriage industry is a death sentence on the carriage horses.”
• WORKERS: For the unionized carriage industry workforce, the Council has made statements about placing them in jobs “in the hospitality industry” that do not exist. In fact, the hospitality workers union, the Hotel Trades Council, called the Speaker’s Office and told them to stop using the words “hospitality industry,” because that union has no surplus jobs, and they wouldn’t take another union’s workers anyway. There needs to be a real plan, and I implore the many immigrant rights organizations in the city, who do such good work, to not stay silent.
• Horse Carriage Medallions:
Regarding the disposition of the medallions, and the debt that is owed on the medallions by the owners, and the disposition of the stables and all the infrastructure that is part of this 168-year-old industry, the Council hasn’t gotten that far, which is another reason not to vote for No. 943-A. The question as to the disposition of the 68 carriage medallions is still not answered. These owners have outstanding large loans they are paying off.
Reimbursement of the purchase price, which is also not provided for in the legislation, would not account for the future income the owner would have earned by continuing to operate under that medallion.
• But the latest version of the bill sidesteps all these matters, and hands off the disposition of these matters to the Mayor. The Speaker’s office had two meetings with carriage industry representatives where the industry presented proposals for review, but there was no response. But please remember that Leadership promised to negotiate these matters, come to closure, and write that language into the bill.
So, if you have read this far, you hopefully have a grasp of the unfairness of Intro. No.943-A, the callous disregard of horses’ lives, inhumane treatment of immigrant workers, the risk to the financial futures of medallion owners and their families.
I urge my colleagues to reject Int. No. 943-A. Thank you.
Speaker Menin quotes:
7/14/26 – “The city has a responsibility to provide quality employment opportunities while guaranteeing a safe and humane future for the horses.”
7/15/26 – “The path forward must protect the workers. We have to address the medallion owners. All of that has to be negotiated, and I’m deeply committed to negotiate that
7/16/26 – “We need to do more to protect the workers.” [We’re] “really trying to come up with some more robust language, which I think needs to be inserted into that bill.”
