Tag Archives: animal lawyer

Cornell University necropsy finds strangulation cause of death for dog dragged by the leash by Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch NY

Date
Posted by
Comments0

“Madison Blue”

Press Release

For Immediate Release:

Contact:
Pam Dixon
dscradopt@gmail.com

Cornell University necropsy finds strangulation cause of death for dog dragged by the leash by Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch NY

 

Wyandanch NY  (January 29, 2019)

This past December, Deep South Canine Inc., a non-profit animal rescue, and friends marked the one-year anniversary of the death of a wonderful dog with blue eyes named “Madison Blue.”  A post-mortem necropsy conducted by Cornell University found clear and convincing evidence that the dog’s death was due to “strangulation from restraining and dragging this dog by its leash.” Necropsy Report

Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch New York, who had been hired by the Rescue for dog training, admitted that he “dragged/pulled Madison up the stairs by her leash” and that soon after the dog “collapsed,” and he had to rush her to the vet. Upon arrival at the vet’s office, Madison Blue was comatose and unresponsive and had to be euthanized. Vet records

The incident happened in December 2017. The Rescue had turned custody and care of the dog over to Tai Nero and Allstars Working Dogs for a two-week training period. At the time of the incident, Madison Blue was apparently not being cared for in an animal facility but was crated along with other dogs at a residential house owned by Nero at 104 S. 25th Street, Wyandanch, New York, 11798-2902.

Both the treating veterinarian and Cornell University attributed the dog’s death to having been dragged by the leash.

According to the vet records, the dog had “ventral neck abrasion/excoriation” that was “likely from a choke collar while being dragged.” The dog was comatose and unresponsive with likely severe brain damage. As the direct result of the trauma, Madison Blue had to be euthanized.

The necropsy conducted by the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center concluded that the dog had been strangulated. The necropsy report found: “Clear and convincing medical evidence indicated that the cause of the coma is asphyxiation attributed to strangulation from restraining and dragging the dog by its leash.” The necropsy report also found that Madison Blue had a fractured tooth (with 70% of the tooth missing), blunt force trauma to the head, and puncture wounds on the muzzle and head.

Deep South has asked the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office to conduct an animal cruelty investigation into the conduct of Tai Nero and Allstars Working Dogs.

Deep South Board Member and Executive Director, Pam Dixon, said: “Everyone who knew Madison Blue is heartbroken at her unexpected death. We want to make sure that no other dog dies in the custody of Tai Nero or Allstars Working Dogs.”

Deep South’s animal welfare lawyer, Dante DiPirro, Esq. of Westhampton Beach, New York, said: “If anyone knows of any dog that has been injured while in the custody of, or while being trained by, Tai Nero or Allstars Working Dogs, or has any other relevant information, please contact us.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Deep South Canine Inc.
Pam Dixon
Email: dscradopt@gmail.com

The Rescue’s Animal Welfare Lawyer:
Dante Di Pirro, Esq.
48 Rogers Avenue, Westhampton Beach NY 11978
Telephone: 609-429-0779
Email: dante@dantelawyer.com

Fraud judgment sought against animal dealer Ann Wasserman for sale of sick puppy dog

Date
Posted by
Comments0

September 12, 2017  Paterson NJ

Today, animal welfare lawyer Dante DiPirro filed for entry of a fraud judgment on behalf of Rachelle Russomanno against Ann L. Wasserman of 341 Skyline Lakes Drive, Ringwood NJ (aka Annie Wasserman, Meshugga Kennels, and/or MovieTime Meshuga Pugs and Labradors) for sale of a sick puppy dog. The lawsuit was brought in Passaic County Superior Court Special Civil Part seeking damages, treble damages, and attorney’s fees for fraud, breach of contract and breach of warranty arising from Wasserman’s sale of a sick Pug puppy to Russomanno and other unconscionable business practices.  Wasserman failed to answer the complaint and the Court entered a default against her. Russomanno now files for entry of a judgment ordering Wasserman to pay specified damages and costs in excess of $15,000.

The complaint, which was filed in January 2017, alleged that: Wasserman operated her puppy selling business out of a used-car lot; falsely stated that she had never had a problem with any of the dogs she had sold health-wise or otherwise; failed to give Russomanno a complete animal history and signed health certificate; and sold her a sick puppy that Wasserman had obtained from Tennessee.

The complaint further alleged that when the puppy started having seizures, Wasserman concealed the fact that other buyers of her dogs had complained that their dogs had health problems, including seizures and encephalitis, and that Russomanno spent thousands of dollars in veterinary costs trying to diagnose her dog’s illness as it continued to worsen.  When Russomanno mailed a certified letter to Wasserman complaining about her dog’s seizures and poor health, Wasserman refused to accept delivery of the letter.  After enduring progressively worse seizures, numerous veterinary diagnoses (including MRIs, spinal taps and neurology consults), veterinary treatments (including mediations and chemo-therapy), and being unable to walk, Russomanno’s puppy passed away from her illness.

“I brought this law suit to stop Wasserman from doing this again and to make certain that my dear puppy Brandi’s suffering and death were not in vain,” said Russomanno.  She added: “The importance of this suit goes far beyond me and my dog: since filing, other victims have been coming forward to say that Wasserman sold them sick dogs too.”

New Jersey has strong consumer fraud laws. They prohibit a person from making a material misrepresentation (by omission or action) or engaging in unconscionable business practices.  With regard to the sale of dogs and cats, the laws additional require the seller take a number of specified measures designed to protect consumers.  These include having the animal examined by a New Jersey licensed veterinarian prior to sale, providing a complete animal history, and providing a signed health certificate that covers specified criteria.

“Anyone in the business or selling dogs or cats that does not comply the consumer fraud laws faces liability, treble damages and attorney’s fees” said Russomanno’s lawyer, Dante DiPirro, an animal welfare lawyer in Hopewell New Jersey.

Groups sue over NJ Div. of Fish and Wildlife’s 17 year failure to timely provide annual reports to the public

Date
Posted by
Comments0

January 11, 2017.  Today, Dante DiPirro, an environmental and animal lawyer, asked the NJ Appellate Division at oral argument to rule that the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife had failed to timely provide annual reports to the public for the past 17 years.  On behalf of a coalition of grassroots groups who sued, he further asked the Court to compel the Division to complete each annual report by the statutory deadline of November 30th, and simultaneously post the report on the internet and provide copies to the New Jersey State Library for permanent public access and use, as required by Title 52.

In 1895, the Legislature enacted legislation in Title 23 that requires the Division (then Commissioners) to report to the Legislature annually, “at the annual meeting thereof,” on all of its operations for the fiscal year.  Simultaneously, the Legislature enacted legislation in Title 52 that imposes a duty on all commissions that are required to present annuals report to the Governor or Legislature to present a copy of the report to the Governor on or before November 30th , and establishes a penalty for a failure to timely complete and present (officer responsible forfeits half of his or her salary from November 30th until the report is presented).  Title 52 also mandates that all commissions provide public access by: (1)posting a copy of the annual report on the internet, and (2)filing one electronic copy and at least one hard copy with the New Jersey State Library “for permanent public access and use.”

For the past 17 years, the Division has failed to issue timely annual reports and make them available to the public by November 30th (for the fiscal year ending June 30th):

  • For ten years in a row – from Fiscal Year 2000 through FY 2009 – the Division failed to even create an annual report.
  • In 2010, when the Division missed the November 30th deadline, and Appellant was compelled to file a law suit.  In response to the suit, the Division completed and posted a FY2010 annual report on the web.  The posting, although 31.7 months late, allowed the suit to be settled.
  • In FYs 2011 – 2014, despite the Division’s acknowledgement in the settlement that it had an annual reporting obligation, the Division failed to timely issue and make available annual reports to the public (i.e. FY2011 report was posted on the web 19.6 months late, FY2012 report posted 7.4 months late, FY2013 report posted 10.8 months late, and FY2014 report posted 6.4 months late).
  • In 2014, Appellants were compelled to file this lawsuit.
  • In 2015, while this lawsuit was still pending, the Division failed to issue and post the FY2015 annual report by the November 30th deadline, and Appellants amended the Notice of Appeal to add that failure.
  • In 2016, while this suit was awaiting oral argument, the Division failed to file and post the FY2016 annual report by the November 30th

The Division’s repeated and on-going failure to complete and make annual reports available to the public by the November 30th deadline not only violates the NJ statutes,  but causes real and significant harm to the public in terms of government transparency, participatory democracy, and the protection of wildlife which is a public resource.  Without timely annual reports, the public cannot know what the Division is doing and planning and where its tax dollars are being spent, cannot meaningfully participate in wildlife policy decision-making, and cannot advocate for humane treatment of wildlife.

Before and throughout this lawsuit, the Division has adamantly refused to acknowledge that it has any deadline to complete an annual report or make it available to the public. It contends as a legal matter that it can get to it when it gets to it.  The Division’s position violates the express requirements and Legislative intent of Titles 23 and 52, which require that all agencies timely issue annual reports and make them available to the public on the web and in the NJ State Library for “permanent public access and use.”

Dante DiPirro, animal lawyer, asks NJ Supreme Court to hear challenge to regulation legalizing “enclosed” leghold traps in New Jersey

Date
Posted by
Comments0
Photo of raccoon caught in egg trap

Photo of raccoon caught in Egg Trap

 

November 28, 2016: Animal law attorney, Dante DiPirro, of Hopewell New Jersey has asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a regulation adopted by the New Jersey Fish and Game Council that brings the use of leghold traps back to New Jersey.  The use of leghold type traps has been banned by statute in the state since 1984.

In the fall of 2015, the NJ Fish and Game Council  — at the urging of the dwindling number of trappers that still operate in the state — promulgated a new regulation that seeks to do an end-run around the statutory ban.  In the regulation, the Council legalizes the use of traps it calls “enclosed” foothold traps, which are in reality, traps in which the leghold mechanism (trigger, spring, steel jaws) are enclosed in an outer housing (made of metal or plastic) with a 2″ hole.  The animal places its arm/leg through the hole in the enclosure to get the bait which triggers the steel jaw to slam shut on the animal’s leg with  up to 60 pounds of force, and restrain the animal trapped and in pain for up to 2 days until the hunter returns to “finish off” the animal.  The addition of an enclosure with a hole does not protect raccoon, possum or pet cats from being trapped or from suffering severe injuries, but is designed to prevent hunting dogs from getting their paws crushed or injured in the trap.

The Appellate Division recently upheld the regulation, after deciding to give great deference to the Council’s “opinion” that the “enclosed” traps were not a type of leghold trap.  Appellants contend that the Appellate Division failed to see the challenged traps for what they are— a steel-jaw leghold type trap concealed under an enclosure.  The Court overlooked the fact that the challenged traps have the same defining feature of the prohibited traps – restraining an animal by the leg – and cause the same harm intended to be prevented – not killing but leaving an animal in excruciating pain for days.  The Court further overlooked that the enactment of the Legislature — which voices the will of the citizenry to prohibit all traps of the steel-jaw leghold “type” as cruel and inhumane devices — must be given effect by invalidating the challenged regulation.  Click below to read Appellants’ briefs:

Appellants’ Brief to Supreme Court in Support of Petition for Certification

Appellants’ Merits Brief to Appellate Division

 

Dante DiPirro, animal lawyer, files suit challenging use of “enclosed” leghold traps in New Jersey

Date
Posted by
Comments0
Photo of raccoon caught in Egg Trap

Photo of raccoon caught in Egg Trap

February 22, 2016: Today, Animal welfare attorney, Dante DiPirro, of Hopewell NJ, filed a brief in the New Jersey Appellate Division challenging a regulation that would allow the use of “enclosed” leghold traps in New Jersey.  The use of leghold type traps has been banned by statute in the state since 1984. In the fall of 2015, the NJ Fish and Game Council  — at the urging of the dwindling number of trappers that still operate in the state — promulgated a new regulation that seeks to do an end-run around the statutory ban.  In the regulation, the Council legalizes the use of traps it calls “enclosed” foothold traps, which are in reality, traps in which the leghold mechanism (trigger, spring, steel jaws) are enclosed in an outer housing (made of metal or plastic) with a 2″ hole.  The animal places its arm/leg through the hole in the enclosure to get the bait which triggers the steel jaw to slam shut on the animal’s leg with  up to 60 pounds of force, and restrain the animal trapped and in pain for up to 2 days until the hunter returns to “finish off” the animal.  The addition of an enclosure with a hole does not protect raccoon, possum or pet cats from being trapped or from suffering severe injuries, but is designed to prevent hunting dogs from getting their paws crushed or injured in the trap.

The appellants in the suit include both New Jersey and national animal welfare and environmental groups: Animal Protection League of New Jersey; Animal Welfare Institute; Sierra Club; Associated Humane Societies; Unexpected Wildlife Refuge; Born Free USA; and Lawyers in Defense of Animals.

The Appellants’ Brief filed today highlights the Legislature’s intent to ban all traps of the steel-jaw leghold type because leghold traps function as “holding devices” which leave the animal in excruciating pain for hours or days, and the factual nature of the “enclosed” leghold traps which have the same essential design, and function, and cause the same harm, as other types of leghold traps.  The brief asks the Court to invalidate the regulations as conflicting with the statutory ban. Click on link below to read the Appellants’ brief.

Appellants Merits Brief LEGHOLD

Wildlife & animal groups file legal challenge to return of leghold traps in New Jersey

Date
Posted by
Comments0

On behalf of wildlife and animal welfare groups including the Sierra Club, the Animal Protection League of New Jersey, the Animal Welfare Institute, Born Free USA and Unexpected Wildlife Refuge, environmental attorney Dante DiPirro has filed a lawsuit challenging regulations proposed by the New Jersey Fish and Game Council that would allow trappers to use “enclosed foothold traps.”  The proposed traps are steel-jaw, leghold traps that have been modified to add an exterior metal or plastic housing with a hole through which the animal places its leg to access the bait and jaws of the trap.

Steel-jaw, leghold traps have been banned in New Jersey since the enactment of a statutory ban in 1984.  The lawsuit alleges that the rules are invalid because they conflict with the statute.

The groups have further filed a motion with the Department of Environmental Protection seeking a stay pending appeal.  A stay is necessary to prevent immediate irreparable harm and maintain the status quo until the Courts decide the challenge to the regulations.

For more information: http://awionline.org/content/organizations-file-motion-prevent-use-illegal-leghold-traps-new-jersey