Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Morin

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

November 6, 2013

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
Peter Morin, Defendant.

Unpublished Opinion

Ann E. Scherzer, J.

Defendant is charged with violating Agricultural and Market Law (AML) § 353, based on allegations that he deprived his pet dog Tinkerbell, a black Shih Tzu, of medical treatment for various illnesses, thereby causing her to suffer. Defendant moves to dismiss the information on three separate grounds. First, defendant claims the information is facially insufficient. Second, he contends that the statute, as applied to the facts of his case, is void for vagueness, and thereby violates his Federal and State Due Process rights. Finally, defendant seeks dismissal in the interest of justice. Upon review of the facts, the moving papers and attachments submitted by both parties as well as the relevant statutes and caselaw, the defendant's motion is DENIED in its entirety, for the reasons stated below. [1]


The accusatory instrument in this case consists of a criminal court complaint signed by Deborah Ryan, a Special Agent with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), which was later converted to an information by way of a supporting deposition from Dr. Robert Reisman. In the complaint, Ryan states that on December 17, 2012, she responded to a call from Canine Styles, a dog grooming shop located at 2231 Broadway in Manhattan, reporting a dog that was suffering from severe matting and overgrown nails. Upon arrival at Canine Styles, Ryan observed Tinkerbell, "suffering from severe matting and crusting around the eyes, ears and anus. Ryan also observed that the dog's nails were overgrown, the dog was very thin and that a strong smell of urine and feces emanated from the dog." Ryan spoke to the defendant who confirmed that he is Tinkerbell's owner, and told Ryan that he has not brought Tinkerbell to a veterinarian or a groomer for a year, because he lacked sufficient funds to pay for their services.

Ryan brought Tinkerbell to the Bergh Memorial Animal Hospital where she was treated by Dr. Reisman, a Doctor of Vetinary Medicine and the Medical Coordinator of Animal Cruelty Cases for that institution. Dr. Reisman reported to Ryan that Tinkerbell suffered from "excessive matting on the head, ears, all four legs and tail; an untreated infection in the right ear; overgrown claws; an untreated eye disease; untreated kidney disease; extreme dental disease and untreated skin disease." Based on his expertise, Dr. Reisman concluded that Tinkerbell "experienced distress and pain as a result of the untreated condiions as well as high blood pressure, and that signs of her painful condition ought to have been noticed by the defendant.


AML § 353 states that "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 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 class A misdemeanor."

"Cruelty" is defined by AML as any "act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted. Agricultural and Markets Law § 350(1).


Defendant argues that the information is facially insufficient, and should therefore be dismissed. More specifically, he asserts that a failure to provide medical treatment or grooming to an animal is not criminalized by this statute because the only affirmative duty imposed upon pet owners is to provide "necessary sustenance, food or drink." Defendant argues that medical treatment is not encompassed by the word "sustenance, " which is meant to include only food and drink. Therefore, absent allegations that defendant failed to provide Tinkerbell with those basics, the information is insufficient.

An information, together with any supporting depositions, must contain non-hearsay allegations providing reasonable cause to believe that the People can prove every element of the crime charged. See CPL §100.40(1)(a)-(c). See also People v Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729 (1986); People v Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133 (1988); People v McDermott, 69 N.Y.2d 889 (1987); People v Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98 (1977). Reasonable cause exists when "evidence or information which appears reliable discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness as to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it." Criminal Procedure Law § 70.10(2). The court must assume that the factual allegations are true and must consider all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the allegations in the light most favorable to the People. (CPL §§ 100.40, 100.15; People v Alejandro, 70 N.Y.2d 133 (1987); People v Henderson, 92 N.Y.2d 677 (1999); Casey, Supra). This does not require that the accusatory instrument state facts that would prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather that it contain allegations of fact that "give an accused sufficient notice to prepare a defense and be adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense". People v Casey, 95 N.Y.2d 354, 360, 740 N.E.2d 233, 236, 717 N.Y.S.2d 88, 91 (2000).

Judged by these standards, the court finds this complaint to be facially sufficient because in addition to mandating that pet owners provide sustenance to their animals, the statute proscribes any act of cruelty toward an animal. Failure to provide medical care to a pet who is suffering from multiple conditions and in obvious distress would, in this court's view, constitute cruelty as defined by the AML; an omission that causes or permits the animal to experience physical pain or suffering. The complaint alleges that defendant failed to provide medical care to Tinkerbell for a period of one year, and that by the time she was treated by Dr. Reisman, Tinkerbell was suffering from several diseases which would cause her to exhibit signs of pain. These allegations provide sufficient support for the People's theory that defendant engaged in an act of cruelty, as defined by the AML.

Because the court finds there is reasonable cause to believe that defendant engaged in an act of cruelty toward Tinkerbell in violation of AML ยง 353, there is no need to resolve the question of whether or not medical ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.