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)

Animal Haven travels by way of a mobile van transporting companion animals to various  events throughout the state so that adoptions may be facilitated.  You may have encountered the organization's representatives in front of entrances to local malls, shopping centers or pet stores.

According to a recent decision, Ms. Virginia Claps was attacked by an Animal Haven animal, in front of a Petco store, and fell to the ground after being bitten "on her coat and thigh." In a personal-injury lawsuit filed by Ms. Claps in Nassau County Supreme Court, Animal Haven's motion to dismiss the case was granted on the grounds that the dog had no prior history of human attacks or other "vicious propensity."

On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed and noted as follows:

To recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, a plaintiff must prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner of the dog, or person in control of the premises where the dog was, knew or should have known of such propensities ... Vicious propensities include the "propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation" ....

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the second cause of action sounding in strict liability by presenting evidence that the dog previously had been shown approximately 30 times and was a "sweet" and "easily shown" dog who had never bitten or jumped on anyone or exhibited any aggressiveness. As such, the defendants did not have notice of any vicious propensities ... In response, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the dog had vicious propensities ....

The plaintiff cannot recover on the first cause of action sounding in common-law negligence ....

We are willing to bet that Ms. Claps did not applaud this outcome.

For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision in Claps v. Animal Haven, Inc., please click on the following link:                             http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_08909.htm

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

Darlene Feger sued the Warwick Animal Shelter in Orange County Supreme Court for money damages and to recover possession of "Kisses," her stolen cat. Apparently, the shelter accepted the white purebred Persian cat knowing that the animal had been purloined. And, to confound matters further, it was also alleged that Kisses had been released for adoption and her new custodians now called her "Lucy."

After preliminary motion practice, the Supreme Court dismissed Ms. Feger's case against the Animal Shelter finding "statutory immunity" pursuant to the Agriculture and Markets Law section 374(3). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that while Ms. Feger could not recover "emotional" or "punitive" damages, she could still pursue her case for the animal's recovery. However, since there was still a question as to whether "Lucy" and "Kisses" were the identical cat, a trial was needed to resolve that aspect of the dispute.

What's stolen Kisses worth?

And, will the Supreme Court compel the animal's new custodians to fork over Kisses?

Stay tuned!

For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision in the Feger v. Warwick Animal Shelter, please click on the following link:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_03534.htm

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