X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46761 Judge Torres BASED ON observations that defendant’s dog had a large tumor hanging from its stomach, a special investigator from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) took the dog, which was diagnosed with terminal cancer. At the ASPCA office defendant acknowledged ownership of the dog and said that he could not afford to treat it. He was arrested for violating Agriculture and Markets Law �353, which prohibits cruelty to animals. Defendant sought dismissal on the ground that �353 is unconstitutionally vague. In a case of first impression, the court held that �353 is unconstitutional when applied to defendants who fail to provide medical care for terminally ill pets. The court found that “necessary sustenance” does not include medical care and that “unjustifiable” when applied to an owner’s obligation to alleviate an animal’s pain was too vague to warn pet owners that not providing medical care for their pets is a crime.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.