Author Archives: Administrator

Animal law attorney Dante DiPirro calls for immediate reform of the NJSPCA

Date
Posted by
Comments0

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

NJSPCA jeep

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

Date
Posted by
Comments0

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

Date
Posted by
Comments0

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, asks NJ Supreme Court to hear challenge to regulation legalizing “enclosed” leghold traps in New Jersey

Date
Posted by
Comments0
Photo of raccoon caught in egg trap

Photo of raccoon caught in Egg Trap

 

November 28, 2016: Animal law attorney, Dante DiPirro, of Hopewell New Jersey has asked the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a regulation adopted by the New Jersey Fish and Game Council that brings the use of leghold traps back to 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 Appellate Division recently upheld the regulation, after deciding to give great deference to the Council’s “opinion” that the “enclosed” traps were not a type of leghold trap.  Appellants contend that the Appellate Division failed to see the challenged traps for what they are— a steel-jaw leghold type trap concealed under an enclosure.  The Court overlooked the fact that the challenged traps have the same defining feature of the prohibited traps – restraining an animal by the leg – and cause the same harm intended to be prevented – not killing but leaving an animal in excruciating pain for days.  The Court further overlooked that the enactment of the Legislature — which voices the will of the citizenry to prohibit all traps of the steel-jaw leghold “type” as cruel and inhumane devices — must be given effect by invalidating the challenged regulation.  Click below to read Appellants’ briefs:

Appellants’ Brief to Supreme Court in Support of Petition for Certification

Appellants’ Merits Brief to Appellate Division