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

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more