Skip to main content

Consumer Fraud: Dog "Rescue" Operation Shut Down and Ordered to Pay Restitution

News 12 recently had a story about a Calverton dog "rescue" operation that was shut down and ordered to repay $24,000 in restitution for "selling" sick dogs. This was a type of fraud on consumers.

The allegations were that the two women who operated Precious Pups Rescue "pulled"/obtained dogs that had health issues from in-state and out-of-state shelters, then sold the dogs to consumers by way of "adoption fees" or "donations" of $200 to $600 per dog.

The owners of Precious Pups Rescue told consumers that the dogs were healthy and had been checked out by a vet when that was not true. The new owners were then faced with thousands of dollars in vet bills:
Zambito and Torrillo-Hooghkirk sold consumers dogs that they claimed were healthy, vaccinated, spayed or neutered, and evaluated by a veterinarian, when in fact, they were not. In fact, the dogs had visible signs of illness, such as coughing, scratching, matting and sores. Afterwards, consumers learned that their dogs suffered from a variety of illnesses, including distemper, heartworm, pneumonia, sarcoptic mange (scabies), and tick infestation. Some of these illnesses not only caused other dogs in consumers’ households to become sick, but have caused the consumers themselves to become ill, requiring medical treatment. In addition, many of these pets required prolonged veterinary care, causing consumers to incur thousands of dollars in veterinary bills.  Several dogs died, and some suffered such severe medical or aggression issues that they had to be euthanized. 
After receiving around 50 complaints from the public about Precious Pups, the New York Attorney General's office brought a special proceeding against them in September, 2014 for having "engaged in repeated and persistent illegality", including violations of the New York Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349, which I have written about before), seeking permanent injunctive relief, restitution, penalties, and costs. "Injunctive relief" means you have to do something or refrain from doing something.

On March 12, 2015, the owners of Precious Pups entered into a Consent Order and Judgment, agreeing to shut down their rescue operation, to pay restitution of $14,090.00 and a penalty of $10,000--which the AG's office may or may not put towards additional restitution. Aggrieved consumers can file a complaint with the AG's office in Hauppauge to try to claim their share of the restitution fund.

The (possible) $24,000 in restitution will not come close to "making whole" all of the owners who lost both a beloved pet and many thousands of dollars in vet bills.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more