Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

982 N.E.2d 594, 20 N.Y.3d 946
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 11, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 982 N.E.2d 594 (Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stray from Heart, Inc. v. Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 982 N.E.2d 594, 20 N.Y.3d 946 (N.Y. 2012).

Opinion

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]*948East 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.

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

Related

Joseph v. Nyack Hosp.
2020 NY Slip Op 07042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Eskenazi-McGibney v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist.
2018 NY Slip Op 8467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
MatterofAnimalLegalDefenseFund,Inc.vAubertine
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Aubertine
119 A.D.3d 1202 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Thrun v. Cuomo
112 A.D.3d 1038 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A.
2 N.E.3d 221 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
982 N.E.2d 594, 20 N.Y.3d 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stray-from-heart-inc-v-department-of-health-mental-hygiene-ny-2012.