For a time, Cornell University’s Animal Science Teaching and Research Center paid for the care of a population of feral cats living in the Center’s diary barns.

In response to health and safety concerns, the Center implemented a policy aimed at reducing the feline population. When employees were instructed to suspend feedings while the Center trapped and dispersed the animals, John Beck, a part-time Center employee, continued to feed them with food he purchased. Beck also reported the Center’s actions to the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which ultimately concluded that the policy did not comprise a form of animal cruelty.

When Beck's cruelty allegations appeared in a local newspaper, he was fired for insubordination.

After Beck filed suit alleging negligence and prima facie tort, the Center convinced a Tompkins County Supreme Court justice to dismiss the case.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, explaining that while depriving animals of food or drink may constitute a misdemeanor, the law does not confer a basis for securing civil damages or other relief on that ground.

And, despite Beck’s allegation that his dismissal violated the University’s termination policy, the record demonstrated that the institution retained the right to fire part-time employees at any time, for any reason.

According to the AD3, “an at-will employee has ‘no viable claim for a wrongful discharge or breach of contract against an employer and a prima facie tort claim cannot be utilized to circumvent the unavailability of those claims.’”

So, as far as Beck is concerned, the cats are out of the bag.

“Time spent with cats is never wasted.”

 – Sigmund Freud

For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Beck v. Cornell University

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 8:25 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

We couldn't let the day pass without commenting on the usually high number of animal-cruelty decisions that were published this past week.

On Thursday, March 30, 2006, we reported on the Appellate Division's criminalization of "goldfish abuse." Just one day later, on Friday, March 31, 2006, the New York Law Journal (on page 24, column 1) published People v. Mary Dawn SItors, a decision by the Honorable Judge George R. Bartlett, III, of Schoharie County, wherein the Court was asked to determine whether the starvation of horses comprised a violation of New York State's animal-cruelty law.

Section 353 of the Agriculture and Markets Law provides as follows:

"A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to another, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink, or causes, procures or permits any animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink, or who willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal or any act tending to produce such cruelty, is guilty of a misdemeanor...."

Despite the statute's unequivocal language, a Town Justice determined that "so long as the animals are alive, there cannot be a finding of animal cruelty ...."

On appeal, rational minds prevailed and Judge Bartlett set aside the Town Court's determination. Judge Bartlett found that animal cruelty encompasses a "broad range of acts or omissions" and cited to a long line of cases which instruct that "'cruelty to an animal includes every unjustifiable act, omission or neglect causing pain, suffering or death which is caused or permitted. The test of cruelty is the justifiability of the act or omission' (citations omitted)."

We shudder to think what mischief our fellow citizens will think up next. And, after all that political-correctness hoopla that preceded the Christmas holiday season, should we now counsel the Easter Bunny to seek protective custody?

Posted by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. at 9:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (0)

Many of us, at one point or another, have owned a goldfish (or two) or know of a family member or friend who shares a home with those lovable cold-blooded creatures. But I'm willing to wager that most of our readers are unaware that goldfish now have "rights" under New York State law.

In a decision released on March 28, 2006, the Appellate Division, First Department, concluded that those who kill or abuse goldfish can be found guilty of a crime; a felony. To reach that end result, the court looked at a state statute known as the Agriculture and Markets Law, which provides, in part, as follows:

A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty. For purposes of this section, aggravated cruelty shall mean conduct which: (i) is intended to cause extreme physical pain; or (ii) is done or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.

The term "companion animal," as used in the preceding paragraph, is statutorily defined as follows:

"Companion animal" or "pet" means any dog or cat, and shall also mean any other domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for such other domesticated animal. "Pet" or "companion animal" shall not include a "farm animal" as defined in this section.

While the defendant's counsel argued that fish are not "companion animals" because they are not "domesticated and because there is not reciprocity or mutuality of feeling between a fish and its owner," the appellate court quickly flushed these and other arguments down the proverbial toilet.

For a copy of the Court's decision, please click this link:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_02315.htm

Posted by Daniel Finkelstein, Esq. at 3:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0) | Comments (2)