Perina v. Animal Care & Control of New York City, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perina v. Animal Care & Control of New York City, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 733, 147 A.D.3d 424, 45 N.Y.S.3d 795

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 2, 2017

Docket2982 401403/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 733 (Perina v. Animal Care & Control of New York City, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perina v. Animal Care & Control of New York City, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 733, 147 A.D.3d 424, 45 N.Y.S.3d 795 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered October 8, 2013, which granted the motion of defendant Animal Care and Control of New York City, Inc. (AC&C) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and/or her friend were the owners of seven dogs and seven cats. Acting on a complaint of animal hoarding, New York City police officers seized six of the seven dogs and all of the cats, and brought the animals to defendant AC&C. Plaintiff redeemed all the animals, except for four puppies, by paying appropriate impound fees. Eleven days after the animals had been seized, plaintiff surrendered the puppies to AC&C, and the puppies were adopted by new owners.

AC&C acted properly by impounding the puppies for 10 days — one day longer than the statutory nine days required— after notifying plaintiff that the animals were in its possession, to allow her time to redeem the animals, upon payment of impoundment fees, submission of proof of proper licensing of the animal, and compliance with the sterilization requirements, within this time period (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 117 [6], [9]; 24 RCNY § 161.23 [c]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 17-804). Plaintiff’s claim that she was coerced into signing the surrender forms by an alleged threat that the puppies’ mother would not be returned to her lacks merit, since the surrender forms were signed after AC&C had already held the dogs for 10 days. By that time, plaintiff’s possessory right to the puppies perished, as she “forfeit [ed] title to any dog unredeemed at the expiration of the appropriate redemption period” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 117 [7]).

Nor does plaintiff’s claim — that the surrenders of the puppies are invalid because they were actually owned by her friend — avail her. Plaintiff admitted that the puppies were *425 hers and, if they were not, she has no standing to bring the action at issue.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered October 8, 2013, which granted the motion of defendant Animal Care and Control of New York City, Inc. (AC&C) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff and/or her friend were the owners of seven dogs and seven cats. Acting on a complaint of animal hoarding, New York City police officers seized six of the seven dogs and all of the cats, and brought the animals to defendant AC&C. Plaintiff redeemed all the animals, except for four puppies, by paying appropriate impound fees. Eleven days after the animals had been seized, plaintiff surrendered the puppies to AC&C, and the puppies were adopted by new owners.

AC&C acted properly by impounding the puppies for 10 days — one day longer than the statutory nine days required— after notifying plaintiff that the animals were in its possession, to allow her time to redeem the animals, upon payment of impoundment fees, submission of proof of proper licensing of the animal, and compliance with the sterilization requirements, within this time period (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 117 [6], [9]; 24 RCNY § 161.23 [c]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 17-804). Plaintiff’s claim that she was coerced into signing the surrender forms by an alleged threat that the puppies’ mother would not be returned to her lacks merit, since the surrender forms were signed after AC&C had already held the dogs for 10 days. By that time, plaintiff’s possessory right to the puppies perished, as she “forfeit [ed] title to any dog unredeemed at the expiration of the appropriate redemption period” (Agriculture and Markets Law § 117 [7]).

Nor does plaintiff’s claim — that the surrenders of the puppies are invalid because they were actually owned by her friend — avail her. Plaintiff admitted that the puppies were *425 hers and, if they were not, she has no standing to bring the action at issue.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 733, 147 A.D.3d 424, 45 N.Y.S.3d 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perina-v-animal-care-control-of-new-york-city-inc-nyappdiv-2017.