Dante Di Pirro, Esq.
Animal law attorney Dante DiPirro urges Ocean County Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute torture and killing of raccoon in Lacey Twp. NJ
Category Archives: Animal
Cornell University necropsy finds strangulation cause of death for dog dragged by the leash by Tai Nero of Allstars Working Dogs of Wyandanch NY
“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
New Jersey Governor has legal authority to cancel bear hunt
Last month Governor Murphy doubted that he has legal authority to cancel the bear hunt. Acting on his own or through his DEP Commissioner, he has the authority.
The Governor as the head of the Executive Branch has broad authority to set policy and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.[1] He also enjoys substantial authority and deference in the issuance and implementation of directives to his administration.[2]
For her part, the Commissioner has the authority to set policies that govern the department and its councils, including the Fish and Game Council.[3] As held by the Supreme Court, the statutory scheme is designed to consolidate all natural resources divisions under a single department, led by a Commissioner whose obligation it is to coordinate a unitary approach to conservation.[4] As such, the Commissioner sets departmental policies and then uses her approval authority to ensure that all policies of the department — including those of its councils — comport with those policies.[5]
The Supreme Court has already ruled in the context of the bear hunt that the Fish and Game Council can only call for a hunt if it has adopted a comprehensive bear management plan that justifies the hunt, and if the Council’s adoption of the plan was after “consultation with the Commissioner and with [her] approval.[6] There are two reasons.
First, the Council is only legally authorized to formulate a comprehensive policy — like a comprehensive bear management policy — with the Commissioner’s approval.[7] Accordingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Council’s “ability to authorize a bear hunt is subject to the statutory condition precedent of the Commissioner’s earlier approval of the very comprehensive policies governing the propagation of black bears.“[8] Here, the Commissioner has not reviewed nor approved the comprehensive bear management policies of the prior administration. Therefore, the Council lacks legal authority to proceed with a bear hunt unless and until the Commissioner approves.
Second, the Council’s call for a hunt in the absence of the new Governor/Commissioner’s approval, violates the law and expressly empowers the Governor/Commissioner to intervene to stop the hunt. The Supreme Court has ruled that “the Fish and Game Council clearly does not function as a completely autonomous body, unaccountable to the department head. Rather, the Commissioner must approve the Fish and Game Council’s comprehensive policies. It is the Commissioner’s approval that, in turn, insures that those policies comport with department-wide goals for environmental protection.”[9] The Supreme Court further explained: “The entire statutory scheme was intended to create a unified approach to conservation and environmental protection under the authority of the Commissioner. Although the Fish and Game Council may act without day-to-day veto by the Commissioner, its actions exist within a larger universe of comprehensive environmental policies. If it does not act in accord with those policies, the Commissioner is empowered to intervene.“[10] Here, the new Governor and Commissioner have the clear authority to set policy on black bear management and if the Council adopts a policy that is inconsistent with the departmental policy, the Council’s policy is invalid and the Commissioner is empowered to intervene to stop the hunt.
In a non-binding comment in the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance case, the Supreme Court opined that if the Commissioner had approved the comprehensive management plan and the Council had acted on it to call for a hunt, the Commissioner would not have been able to intervene to stop it.[11] Those were not the facts in that case and they are not the facts here because this Commissioner has not approved the Council’s plan. Moreover, it would be improper to deny this new Governor/Commissioner the right to approve/disapprove a Council’s plan simply because the plan had been approved by the prior administration.
In conclusion, the Governor has the power to cancel the hunt and the courts are likely to accord him deference, especially where, as here, he is setting his own policies in the first year of his administration. The governorship is one of the most powerful in the nation. If the Governor wishes to deliver on his long-standing promise to cancel the bear hunt, he can exercise his authority.
End notes:
[1] “The Governor is vested with the executive power of the State. N.J. Const. (1947), N.J. Const. (1947), Art. V, § 1, par. 1. As the head of the Executive Branch of government he has the duty and power to supervise all employees in each principal department of that branch. Id., Art. Art. V, § 4, par. 2. Of necessity, this includes the inherent power to issue directives and orders by way of implementation in order to insure efficient and honest performance by those state employees within his jurisdiction. Such power stems from the Governor’s responsibility under the foregoing constitutional provisions as well as Art. V, § 1, par. 11, which requires that he ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'” Kenny v. Byrne, 144 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div., 1976)
[2] Shapiro v. Fauver, 193 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div., 1984)
[3] New Jersey Constitution of 1947 mandates that “[a]ll executive and administrative offices, departments, and instrumentalities of the State government… shall be allocated by law among and within not more than twenty principal departments.” N.J. Const. art. V, 4, 1. The Constitution further places a single executive, appointed by the Governor with Senate approval, at the helm of each principal department. N.J. Const. art. V, 4, 2. An example is the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. As a matter of statute, the Commissioner is authorized to administer the work of the department and perform, exercise and discharge the functions, powers and duties of the department. N.J.S.A. 13:1B-3
[4] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, 867 A.2d 1147, 1155, 182 N.J. 461 (2005).
[5] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1155.
[6] US Sportsman’s Alliance at 1157
[7] N.J.S.A. 13:1B-28
[8] U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance at 1156
[9] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1155.
[10] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1156.
[11] U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance at 1158.
Links:
Governor Murphy’s August 20, 2018 Executive Order No. 34 :
http://d31hzlhk6di2h5.cloudfront.net/20180820/82/2a/71/f5/25912cf54e1ea0981186c1fc/EO-34.pdf
Governor’s Office August 20, 2018 Press Release on Executive Order 34:
https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562018/approved/20180820a.shtml
2018-08-21 Animal attorney Dante DiPirro on WOR TV talking about stopping Hamilton Township NJ from killing animals in violation of the 7-day hold law
After his cease and desist demand letter to Hamilton Township NJ caused the township to end its policy of killing pets in violation of the 7-day hold law, animal lawyer Dante DiPirro appeared on WOR TV’s “Chasing News” show to debunk the township’s claim that it was only helping suffering, terminally-ill animals.
DiPirro read from the shelter’s own records which documented that animals of all ages were euthanized “at owner’s request” and without any examination from a veterinarian.
In addition, on the TV panel, the township health officer was forced to admit that the township’s policy was in fact to kill animals turned in by their owners with no questions asked, and for each killing the township made $100.
DiPirro pointed out that state law specifically required shelters to hold animals — including owner surrendered animals — for at least 7-days and that the township’s needless killing of animals violated the law and deprived the poor animals of the legislatively-mandated opportunity to be adopted before they were killed.
The TV segment can be viewed at:
[The Hamilton Township Animal Shelter and Adoption Center is under scrutiny for its euthanasia practices. Bill Spadea talks with the Hamilton Township health officer and animal law attorney Dante DiPirro of Hopewell NJ who sent the cease-and-desist letter.]
In response to the letter from animal lawyer Dante DiPirro Hamilton Twp NJ ceases killing owner-surrendered animals in violation of the 7-day hold law
Upon learning that the Hamilton Township Animal Shelter was killing animals without giving the mandated 7-day opportunity for adoption, the firm send the township a cease and desist letter.
On receipt of the letter, which set forth the law and public policy served by the law, the township ceased the policy.
Animal law attorney Dante DiPirro calls for immediate reform of the NJSPCA
On October 20, 2017, the New Jersey Commission of Investigation issued yet another report documenting fundamental failings on the part of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NJSPCA) and its inability to perform its mandated mission. The report, which entitled “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: New Jersey’s SPCAs 17 Years Later,” provides a scathing review of the NJSPCA and recommends the repeal of statutes empowering the SPCA and its county chapters to enforce New Jersey’s animal cruelty laws. http://www.nj.gov/sci/pdf/SPCA-FollowUpReport.pdf
On the heels of the report, animal law attorney Dante DiPirro — who was co-chair of the 2002-2004 Governor’s Animal Welfare Task Force that called for repeal of the NJSPCA’s power to arrest and carry weapons and the assignment of law enforcement functions to professional law enforcement — called for immediate reform. See NJ Spotlight’s article entitled “NJSPCA: More a home for Wannabe Cops than a Haven for Animals?” http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/17/10/23/njspca-more-a-home-for-wannabe-cops-than-a-haven-for-animals/
Fraud judgment sought against animal dealer Ann Wasserman for sale of sick puppy dog
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
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, files suit challenging use of “enclosed” leghold traps in New Jersey
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.
Wildlife & animal groups file legal challenge to return of leghold traps in New Jersey
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
2015-07-02 Animal law attorney Dante DiPirro announces successful prosecution of animal cruelty against farm animals in Millstone New Jersey
Animal law attorney Dante DiPirro announces the successful prosecution of an animal cruelty case involving farm animals in Millstone New Jersey. A court order entered in Superior Court this week resolving the case requires the couple that owned the animals — Tina Perna and Christopher Vaccaro– to pay $10,000 and prohibits them from ever having sheep or goats on their property. http://www.app.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2015/07/02/millstone-couple-settles-animal-abuse-lawsuit/29644929/
Major improvement in conditions for Millstone farm animals in response to Friday’s court order
There has been immediate and major improvement in the conditions of care for farm animals in Millstone Township NJ in response to the NJ Superior Court Order issued Friday, February 28, 2015 in Goldman v. Perna and Vaccaro. The Court Order directed defendants Christopher Vaccaro and Tina Perna to immediately provide adequate water, food and shelter for over 250 farm animals on their property.
Plaintiff, Stuart Goldman, who brought the civil action for animal cruelty, reports that on his visit to the property today, he personally observed that Vaccaaro had brought in ample drinking water and good quality hay. Goldman saw hired workers on site and saw that they had removed debris that had been lying all over the property and had been left inside the greenhouse and shelters where animals stayed. Goldman also confirmed that bedding for the animals had been brought in– bedding is especially critical for animals when the weather is cold.
Plaintiff will continue to monitor the status of the animal and compliance with the court order. Plaintiff has lined up sanctuaries that are willing to take in animals as necessary. Of his observations today, Goldman said: “It is a great relief that the Court granted the injunction and that Vaccaro is apparently working to comply with the order.”
Goldman is represented by Dante DiPirro, Esq. of Hopewell NJ, who is an animal welfare lawyer and chancery court lawyer.
Judge orders couple to give proper food, water, shelter to farm animals in Millstone NJ
Today Superior Court Judge Patricia Del Bueno Cleary granted an injunction ordering defendants Christopher Vaccaro and Tina Perna of Millstone Township to provide their animals with at least 500 gallons of drinking water a day, and to provide sufficient food and shelter as required by the Department of Agriculture humane welfare regulations and the animal cruelty statutes.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by animal welfare attorney Dante DiPirro on behalf of Stuart Goldman alleging that a veterinarian’s inspection on Sunday had revealed horrible conditions, including no drinking water, insufficient food and inadequate shelter.
Today’s order also granted a right of access to the property to monitor compliance with the court order and the authority to remove animals at risk of imminent death or serious injury.
For months, Plaintiff and Monmouth County SPCA Chief Buddy Amato had documented violations, warned defendants to provide the legally required care, and filed cruelty complaints in Millstone Municipal Court (the Municipal charges are scheduled for trial March 23-24). This week, with evidence that the animals were in desperate need – including no drinking water whatsoever — Plaintiff filed a law suit in Superior Court seeking emergent injunctive relief for the animals.
The parties are scheduled to return to Superior Court April 24th to determine if additional relief should be granted.
Plaintiff Goldman said: “This is a good day for the animals. These animals are not even getting drinking water. Nursing mothers are suffering the most. On Sunday, the vet determined that they were so seriously dehydrated that they were having trouble even providing milk for their babies.”
Dante DiPirro said: “We want to thank Bud Amato of the Monmouth County SPCA for his active support of this case and the request for injunctive relief. His assistance was extremely helpful in securing this emergent order. Animals lives were hanging in the balance.”
Link to NJ.com news article: http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2015/02/judge_orders_couple_to_give_proper_food_water_shel.html#comments
Law suit alleges dozens of nursing goats and sheep at risk of perishing on Millstone NJ farm
On February 25, 2015, Dante DiPirro, Esq., an animal welfare lawyer representing plaintiff Stuart Goldman, filed a complaint in Monmouth County Superior Court alleging that dozens of nursing goats and sheep are at risk of perishing on a Millstone Township farm unless the court orders immediate relief addressing a complete lack of drinking water, and inadequate food and shelter.
There are over 250 farm animals on the property — including approximately 60 dehydrated nursing goats and sheep, and too many kids to count — all of whom are suffering in the bitter cold without any drinking water, and without sufficient food or shelter.
The law suit names as defendants Christopher Vaccaro, the owner of the property, and his girl friend, Tina Perna, both of whom live on site and are responsible for caring for the animals.
In a certification of support filed with the court, plaintiff’s veterinarian states that based on her inspection and examination of the animals on Sunday, February 22, 2015, the animal care being provided is extremely poor. There was no potable water for the animals, insufficient food for the number of animals, and the shelters were insufficient, in poor repair, filthy and dangerous for the animals even go into the structures.
She found nursing mothers with babies that were seriously dehydrated. She found that animals were already dying — as shown by an emaciated goat carcass found hidden under a tarp in a shed. She concluded that unless the animals get immediate relief, they will continue to die; she anticipated that 20 to 30% of the total population will be dead in a matter of weeks. Most at risk are the nursing mothers, of which there are many dozen on the property.
In the court papers, plaintiff seeks emergent relief that ordering defendants to immediately provide the drinking water that the animals are being deprived of, and other measures needed to prevent further injury or death as the court case proceeds.
Plaintiff has been trying to get assistance for these animals since last winter when the animals were without proper drinking water, food or shelter. In February 2014, he contacted the Monmouth County SPCA, and they inspected and issued animal cruelty violations.
In January of this year Plaintiff had to act again. On January 8, 2015, contacted the MCSPCA to alert them that with bitter winter storms approaching and the farm animals still without proper drinking water, food or shelter, defendants were committing the same animal cruelty laws that Plaintiff had brought to the attention of the SPCA last winter. Goldman, Chief Amato of the MCSPCA and a farm animal care expert then went to the Property. Chief Amato and the animal expert observed that the shelters had no bedding and were inadequate both in number and condition, and that what little drinking water was provided was frozen solid. Goldman observed that the shelters were inadequate. As a result of the inspection, on Goldman filed animal cruelty charges.
Defendants still did not remediate the violations so Plaintiff contacted the MCSPCA again, and as a result Plaintiff and MCSPCA officers have gone to the property several times in January and earlier this month. Plaintiff’s efforts culminated on Sunday, February 22, 2015, when he, the MCSPCA and Plaintiff’s veterinarian went to the property and documented the violations that are the subject of Plaintiff’s lawsuit in Superior Court and request for emergent relief.
The MCSPCA has now also filed cruelty violations for improper drinking water, food and shelter. Its case will be heard in municipal court at the end of March. Plaintiff’s hearing in Superior Court seeking a temporary injunction that would provide immediate protection for the animals will be heard Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:30 pm.
About his Superior Court case, Goldman said: “The Monmouth County SPCA has been extremely supportive. Chief Amato has gone the property multiple times, has escorted my veterinarian on the property so that the animals’ health could be properly evaluated, and has indicated that both he and his investigators will testify in court in support of this case.”
About the hearing Friday, Dante DiPirro, Esq. said: “Immediate relief from the court is necessary to stop the suffering and death of these poor animals.”
Dante DiPirro Esq. of Hopewell NJ is an animal welfare lawyer.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Dante Di Pirro, Esq.
77 Snydertown Road, Hopewell, NJ 08525
609-429-0779 dante@dantelawyer.com
Valentines Day present — goats and sheep get in out of the cold!
Yesterday, Valentines Day, I learned that goats and sheep were being left outside in the snow, ice and freezing weather without any shelter in Millstone Township New Jersey, in violation of department of agriculture regulations and the New Jersey animal cruelty statutes.
Despite the fact that law enforcement had been to the property last winter and documented this and other violations, no shelter had been constructed.
With a forecast of a new snowstorm with 40 mile an hour winds and temperatures dropping down to 10°, I immediately started drafting emergent papers to file in court Monday seeking to have the animals immediately turned over to animal rescue groups for temporary protection and care. Simultaneously, former Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the Monmouth County SPCA Stuart Goldman began calling rescue groups to line them up to take in the animals in the event that we obtain a court order.
I am very pleased to report that as a result of our efforts, last night the Monmouth County SPCA went to the property and the animals were moved inside a greenhouse.
Mr. Goldman and I will be following up in court in subsequent proceedings seeking to permanently remedy the violations.