Coming fresh off of the biggest animal rights protest and rally in recent NYC history with 300 activists at City Hall, I filed a criminal complaint against Animal Care & Control – New York at the 75th Precinct in Brooklyn on September 30, 2014. I received the complaint number three days later as #16636.
For about four years now under the group New York Animal Rights Alliance America, we have been protesting and rallying against the atrocities committed against animals at NY-ACC which have included massive negligence with lack of veterinary care and outright wrongful death (as if any death was not wrongful, this meaning that there were rescuers and/or adopters in place but the animal was killed anyway).
We have tracked such cases for several years with the hopes of filing petitions that would then garner change in these areas. However, something happened that was unexpected – the ASPCA decided to abandon its efforts in animal cruelty investigation and plopped these duties into the lap of the New York City Police Department. This was a welcome change. The ASPCA has been the fox watching the hen house in NYC for far too long, turning a blind eye and in fact accusations abound of complicity of crimes against animals at the ACC. Within about three months, the NYPD put together a task force for enforcement of animal cruelty laws which was a welcome sight. I even briefly met with the much celebrated Commissioner Bratton who informed me personally he was committed to fighting animal abuse in NYC. The time was ripe to file a criminal complaint against the ACC in NY and I seized the moment. Now the scope of our petition to court would be changed. Instead of filing a petition against the Department of Health in the matter of lack of vet care, the petition could now possibly be filed against the District Attorney in Brooklyn if there is inaction.
Basically this criminal complaint outlines the case of poor Jackie, an uber senior yellow lab mix surrendered as a “stray” after having sustained apparent serious injuries with massive infection setting in and bone fragments protruding from her limb. This dog clearly needed to be admitted to the hospital immediately with intravenous support of antibiotics and pain medication. After three days of intramuscular injections of antibiotic and morphine, suffering in her cage with this mind-boggling pain, she was allegedly euthanized.
Unfortunately we see these cases every day. Jackie just happened to be at the right place at the right time for a criminal complaint to be filed. We had a choice of a stack of cases but this case was right in front of us and so bold and brazen was their neglect of her.
We have asked for nothing less than the individual responsible for the lack of vet care to be arrested and brought to a court of law in front of a judge to explain how this could have happened. Did this individual (vet or vet tech) choose to medically neglect the dog or was this somehow a policy handed down from the Board of Directors or the Shelter Director? Since lack of vet care is so rampant, we have really got to believe the latter.
The following is my affidavit submitted to the 75th precinct complete with my argument for standing, the law in NY as established in precedence that sustenance includes veterinary care, and my request for an investigation and arrest.
Our organization will now seek to train true no-kill activists/rescuers from sea to shining sea to file these criminal complaints against kill pounds. A criminal complaint should be filed for each and every animal that is not properly vetted or is killed before the hold time or killed with rescue/adopters on the way. We must establish that there is no need for an attorney to file this criminal complaint and we will also train to file the petition when there is inaction. We believe that with this “simple” filing of this criminal complaint, we have set the kill pound system on their heels and massive revolution will occur as a result. I mean, imagine the kill pound system forced to provide veterinary care? No longer able to neglect animals with bullets in their head, no skin on their limbs, or massive emaciation with impunity? Just imagine!
We are also seeking to have an open bid in NYC for the contract for “animal care and control.” To have anything less is the epitome of corruption and cronyism. My standing as stated in the affidavit had partly to do with the fact that we are 501(c)3 rescue and applied for pull status and have not been provided with an application. Since June 2011, it was decreed that no rescue participate in any of our protest campaigns. This is not any different from other cities, however, where a rescue “does business” with the kill pound and is forbidden to protest. Obviously though this is an infringement of the First Amendment right of free speech. A civil rights suit has already been won in the Town of Hempstead, Long Island, NY, where a rescue spoke up about the conditions. But the head of the Mayors Alliance of ACC-NY had decreed that she was against outside rescues pulling animals and defeated the Companion Animal Access Rescue Act (CAARA) about two years ago based on this stance. Obviously a policy that should be challenged because any valid 501(c)3 rescue without violations of any kind should be able to pull animals for their fosters and adopters. Of note, our rescue is/was not the only rescue to be denied pull as there have been many others and we are gathering those rescues together to file a class action suit against this policy.
Additionally, we seek true no-kill shelters to be built in Queens and the Bronx with upwards of two million people each with no animal shelter. Currently, the City Council has 18 sponsors to such a bill and we believe that it is very possible that 0655/059 (an arrogant piece of legislation from the Bloomberg/Quinn administration to NOT build shelters in Queens and the Bronx after a victory in court on appeal) will be repealed and the shelters will be built. But our group, New York Animal Rights Alliance America will not wait around. We will hit the streets of New York City, particularly the Bronx and Queens, with a referendum signature drive of 50,000 signatures to build those shelters. When I informed one particular councilperson’s office of our goal, they nearly fell off their chair 🙂 Yup, that’s us!! 50,000 signatures with 100,00 fliers!! We will get this done.
Here is the affidavit:
Kathryn F. Riviello
President, No Kill New York, Inc.
501(c) 3 Rescue/Advocacy Nonprofit
680 Rt 211E, #3B-234
Middletown, NY 10941
(845) 856 7366
I HEREBY SUBMIT THIS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITH STANDING AS A 501c3 rescuer who has applied for “pull rights” to Animal Care & Control in NY without having been afforded a response whatsoever. Our organization was able and ready to remove this dog from this facility and in an ongoing manner, Animal Care & Control of NY has denied our organization even an application to enable us to do so.
I ALSO HEREBY SUBMIT THIS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITH STANDING as a citizen reporting a crime against an animal as a witness in the borough of Manhattan in NY State.
THIS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT REGARDS AN ANIMAL NAMED “JACKIE” A1015283:
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST NEW YORK ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR MISDEMEANOR ANIMAL NEGLECT:
Whereas Article 26 N.Y. AGM. LAW § 353 : NY Code – Section 353 provides the following:
“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 unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink, or who wilfully sets on foot, instigates, 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 and for purposes of paragraph (b) of subdivision one of section 160.10 of the criminal procedure law, shall be treated as a misdemeanor defined in the penal law. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit or interfere with any properly conducted scientific tests, experiments or investigations, involving the use of living animals, performed or conducted in laboratories or institutions, which are approved for these purposes by the state commissioner of health. The state commissioner of health shall prescribe the rules under which such approvals shall be granted, including therein standards regarding the care and treatment of any such animals. Such rules shall be published and copies thereof conspicuously posted in each such laboratory or institution. The state commissioner of health or his duly authorized representative shall have the power to inspect such laboratories or institutions to insure compliance with such rules and standards. Each such approval may be revoked at any time for failure to comply with such rules and in any case the approval shall be limited to a period not exceeding one year. – “
REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF “SUSTENANCE” as provided in Courts of Law in NY State, it is absolutely provided that depravation of veterinary care is included in the definition:: “Thus, it can be argued that a person who deprives an animal of medical/veterinary care or neglects or refuses to furnish it medical/veterinary care is guilty of a violation of Section 353 of Article 26 of the Agriculture and Markets law. Prepared by New York State Humane Association, PO Box 3068, Kingston, NY 12402”. Consider the following case law:
Memorandum Regarding the Issue of Sustenance Including Veterinary Care
A NYSHA Fact Sheet
This memorandum is not intended to provide legal advice or legal services, but simply to provide research information as understood by NYSHA with regard to the issue of sustenance as referred to in Section 353 of Article 26 of the NYS Agriculture and Markets law. Prepared May 2007.
Question Presented: Within the context of Section 353 of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law, is there recently published case law that supports the premise that the word “sustenance” includes medical/veterinary care?
Brief Answer: In People v. Arroyo, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 175 (N.Y.C. Criminal Ct. 2004), the court found that “sustenance” did not include medical care. However, two appellate courts found it did. In People v. Mahoney, 9 Misc. 3d 101, 804 N.Y.S. 2d 535 (2nd Dep´t App. Term 2005), the court found that “sustenance” included veterinary care. In People v. Sitors, 12 Misc. 3d 928, 815 N.Y.S. 2d 393 (Schoharie County Ct. 2006), the court cited People v. Mahoney, supra, in its overturning of a lower court decision regarding appropriate animal care. Thus, appellate court rulings have indicated that veterinary care is included within the meaning of sustenance. And though those rulings are not controlling at the Appellate Division, they provide persuasive guidance on this topic. Also, of interest is an older case, Jones v.Beame, 56 A.D.2d 778 (1st Dep´t 1977), in which the trial court decision regarding the inclusion of veterinary care as part of “sustenance” was left intact.
Facts: Sustenance is a problematic concept within the context of Section 353. Because it is not defined in the Section 350, it has been subject to interpretation.
Discussion: The issue to be determined is whether a defendant can be successfully prosecuted under Section 353 for failing to provide medical care to an animal who is in need of it. The following cases are relevant to the issue.
In March 2004, in People v. Arroyo, supra,the defendant´s dog was suffering from terminal cancer and had an apparently painful tumor on its body. The defendant chose not to provide medical care for various reasons. The trial court ruled that the defendant could not be charged with not providing medical care for the animal because Section 353 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of the case and specifically that the word “sustenance”did not afford notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that he or she is obligated to provide veterinary care to a terminally ill animal.
In 2005, People v. Mahoney, supra, was a case with similar circumstances, but there the appellate court ruled differently. A veterinarian recommended to Mahoney that the dog receive follow up care to determine if a ulcerated tumor could be operated upon. Instead, Mahoney abandoned the dog to die in the basement of a rental property when she left. In its charge to the jury, the trial court stated that the term “sustenance” was distinguishable from the term “food or drink” and meant the provision of “veterinary care and shelter adequate to maintain health and comfort.” The jury found Mahoney guilty and she appealed. The appellate court ruled that the lower court´s reading of the law was correct, saying, “We likewise find that the jury charge defining sustenance to include veterinary care and adequate shelter to maintain the dog´s health and comfort properly conveyed the appropriate law.” (Case Shepardized, no negative action. Referenced, inter alia, in People v. Sitors, supra.)
In 2006, in People v. Sitors, supra, the People were appealing two rulings of the local trial court. In its first ruling, the trial court had dismissed an application for a security bond brought by a humane agency that had taken custody of numerous horses after a police seizure. By way of reasoning, the trial court indicated that as long as the animals are alive, there cannot be a finding of animal cruelty and furthermore that Section 353 could not dictate management practices. Because the security bond action, which had a civil standard of proof, was dismissed, the defense requested that the criminal charges be dismissed based on collateral estoppel. The judge agreed and dismissed the charges. The appellate court determined that the first action which lead to the second was an erroneous interpretation of the law. The court said, “Contrary to the Town Court´s interpretation, the Agriculture and Markets law does address management practices: no one may commit an act of cruelty to an animal [emphasis in original]….What is required to constitute a violation of the Agriculture and Markets Law in a case such as this is that the defendant committed an act of cruelty to an animal by failing to provide ‘necessary sustenance´.” The court concludes, “Animal cruelty under Agriculture and Markets Law 353 includes not only those acts or omissions that would result in death, but also encompasses a broad range of acts or omissions” and then cites People v. Mahoney, supra, among other cases, to makes its point regarding omissions. The appellate court returned both the civil action and the criminal action to the lower court. (Case was Shepardized, no negative action.)
In Jones v. Beame, supra,the plaintiffs waged a suit against New York City officials wherein they alleged in the first cause of action that the defendants were not providing veterinary care, inter alia, to the animals in the various city zoos in violation of Section 353. Though the trial court dismissed many of the causes of action, it retained the one that dealt with the lack of veterinary care, inter alia. The NYC officials wanted all causes of action dismissed and appealed the decision. The First Department reversed the trial court decision, finding Jones did not have “standing” to bring the case on behalf of the animals. In its publication, Animal Fighting And Cruelty Cases in New York , A Guide for Judges, Prosecutors, and Defense Counsel, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York cited the case as demonstrating that veterinary care, inter alia, was included within the concept of “sustenance” in Section 353. In an explanatory letter to the New York State Humane Association, writing on behalf of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Jane Hoffman, Esq. said, “… Jones v. Beamewas properly cited for the proposition that ‘absence of effective veterinary care, lack of proper habitats, inadequate protection, untrained zoo caretakers, resulting in death and mental and physical suffering, if proved, would constitute blatant cruelty to animals.´ The appellate court reversed on the ground that the individual plaintiff did not have standing to sue for violation of a New York State criminal law. It therefore did not reach the issue of whether the violations cited, if proven, would in fact constitute a violation of the cruelty law. The Supreme Court´s holding on that ground was, thus, not reviewed on appeal and is still good law.”
The trial court in People v. Arroyo, supra, determined that the concept of “sustenance” as used in Section 353 did not include medical care. However, subsequent to that decision, two appellate courts in People v. Mahoney, supra, and in People v. Sitors, supra, found differently.
Though these were intermediate appellate courts, one within the Second Department, the other within the Third Department, both found that “sustenance” included the concept of providing medical/veterinary care to an animal. The decisions are not controlling, except for those lower courts in the direct appellate chain of the courts that rendered those decisions, but they are persuasive. Therefore, these cases could be used to argue that “sustenance” includes medical/veterinary care. Further, inPeople v. Mahoney, supra, the court did not state that any authority figure has to dictate that a person provide medical care to an animal in order to find a person guilty of not providing such care. The court simply found that the trial court was correct in defining “sustenance” to include veterinary care and adequate shelter to maintain adequate health and comfort. Also, though Jones v. Beame, supra, is an older case, that trial court also determined that the lack of veterinary care provided to animals in city zoos constituted a viable cause of action for a civil suit.
Thus, it can be argued that a person who deprives an animal of medical/veterinary care or neglects or refuses to furnish it medical/veterinary care is guilty of a violation of Section 353 of Article 26 of the Agriculture and Markets law.
Prepared by New York State Humane Association, PO Box 3068, Kingston, NY 12402
IT IS THEREFORE ALLEGED BY THIS CRIMINAL COMPLAINT THAT ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL OF NY (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) IS GUILTY OF NOT PROVIDING SUSTENANCE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 26 OF NY AG AND MARKETS. THE FOLLOWING IS THE POST-OUT BY ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL OF NY regarding the dog “Jackie” whereby the dog was not afforded proper veterinary care (as evidenced by myself, an animal rescuer) that the dog should have been placed immediately into 24/7 veterinary observation with intravenous sustenance and medically necessary immediate surgical intervention (possible limb amputation) to the apparent massive infection and severe pain in which bone fragments were exposed from serious injury. This animal control facility failed to provide a modicum of veterinary services in their possession and by 09/29/14 the dog was allegedly killed by injection (the manner in which this injection was administered is also called into question as to whether anesthesia by state law was administered (please refer to the paragraph description of anesthesia by law for euthanasia in NY state following their own postout on said dog).
My name is JACKIE. My Animal ID # is A1015283.
I am a female brown labrador retr mix. The shelter thinks I am about 15 YEARS old.
***NEEDS PLACEMENT ASAP! Wounds On Limbs & May Need Amputation!***UNABLE TO WALK***
I came in the shelter as a STRAY on 09/25/2014 from NY 11372, owner surrender reason stated was STRAY.
MOST RECENT MEDICAL INFORMATION AND WEIGHT
09/27/2014 Exam Type CAGE EXAM – Medical Rating is 4 NC – SEVERE CONDITIONS NOT CONTAGIOUS, Behavior Rating is NONE, Weight 78.0 LBS.
VET CHECK — MONITOR CONDITION (SEVERE WOUNDS) BAR. BCS 6/9. EATING WITH GOOD APPETITE. AMBULATING ON BOTH FORELIBMS AND LEFT HINDLIMB — NO WEIGHT BEARING ON RIGHT HINDLIMB NO BANDAGE ON RIGHT HOCK TODAY (BANDAGE KEEPS FALLING OFF) — RIGHT HOCK HAS SEVERE INSTABILITY DUE TO NATURE OF WOUNDS. AMPUTATION OF RIGHT HINDLIMB LIKELY INEVITABLE. NEW HOPE LOOKING FOR PLACEMENT. IF NO PLACEMENT RECOMMEND EHR DUE TO MEDICAL CONDITION ——————————————————————————————————- BAR. BCS 6/9. FRIENDLY. UNABLE TO AMBULATE PE: EENT NUCLEAR SCLEROSIS, PLN WNL, ORAL EXAM MODERATE TO SEVERE DENTAL TARTAR/GINGIVITIS (MISSING MANY TEETH), THORACIC AUSC WNL, ABD PALP WNL, M/S — NON-WEIGHT BEARING ON HINDLIMBS, SKIN/HAIR — SEVERE ROADRASH EXCORIATIONS, ABRASIONS, AND LACERATIONS ON RIGHT MEDIAL HOCK (EXPOSED BONE), RIGHT GROIN, LATERAL LEFT HOCK, LATERAL LEFT ELBOW (EXPOSED JOINT CAPSULE), AND LATERAL RIGHT ELBOW. DX: LATERAL AND VD HINDLIMB/PELVIC XRAYS — RIGHT HOCK HAS BONE FRAGMENT EVIDENT. NO OTHER FRACTURES. MODERATE TO SEVERE SOFT TISSUE SWELLING OF BOTH HINDLIMBS OBSERVED. TX: PROVIDED 1.6ML HYDROMORPHONE IM, 2.0ML RIMADYL SQ, 2.5ML BAYTRIL 100MG/ML IM WOUNDS ALL CLIPPED AND CLEANED WITH CHLORHEXADINE SCRUB — COPIOUS STERILE SALINE LAVAGE PROVIDED TO CLEAN ALL WOUNDS. LATERAL LEFT HOCK WOUNDS CLOSED WITH CRUCIATES (2-0 PDS). LEFT LATERAL ELBOW WOUND CLOSED WITH 0 PDS (PENROSE DRAIN PLACED). RIGHT MEDIAL HOCK WOUND IS VERY SEVERE AND NO PRIMARY CLOSURE POSSIBLE — WOUND CLEANED AND CALCIUM ALGINATE PROVIDED AS DRESSING TO COAX HEALTHY GRANULATION TISSUE. OTHER WOUNDS CLEANED AND SSD OINTMENT APPLIED. ASSESSMENT; SEVERE WOUNDS ON ALL FOUR LIMBS (RIGHT HINDLIMB MOST SEVERE) — AMPUTATION OF RIGHT HINDLIMB MAY BE INDICATED DUE TO EXTENT OF WOUNDS. PLAN; RECOMMEND NEW HOPE PLACEMENT AND FOLLOWUP CARE AT LOCAL VETERINARIAN. IF NO PLACEMENT RECOMMEND EHR DUE TO EXTENT OF WOUNDS. PROVIDING 2.5ML BAYTRIL 100MG/ML IM Q24 FOR 7 DAYS. 100MG TRAMADOL PO BID FOR 7 DAYS. 150MG RIMADYL PO Q24 FOR 7 DAYS. SSD OINTMENT APPLIED Q24 FOR 5 DAYS. DAILY BANDAGE CHANGE OF RIGHT HOCK WOUND. CONTINUED MONITORING WHILE AT BROOKLYN ACC.
09/25/2014 PET PROFILE MEMO
9/25/14 No profile available.
No Web Memo
No Behavior Summary
09/25/2014 INITIAL PHYSICAL EXAM
Medical rating was 3 NC – MAJOR CONDITIONS NOT CONTAGIOUS, behavior rating was NONE
Scanned negative Intact female, approx 15 yrs old Severe dental disease; very few teeth severe dermatitis and wounds on ventral abdomen and hind legs. Came in with hind legs wrapped- wraps look old, paws are swollen Unable to walk on own BAR Friendly and allowed handling
09/27/2014 CAGE EXAM (LAST MAJOR EXAM)
Medical rating 4 NC – SEVERE CONDITIONS NOT CONTAGIOUS,
VET CHECK — MONITOR CONDITION (SEVERE WOUNDS) BAR. BCS 6/9. EATING WITH GOOD APPETITE. AMBULATING ON BOTH FORELIBMS AND LEFT HINDLIMB — NO WEIGHT BEARING ON RIGHT HINDLIMB NO BANDAGE ON RIGHT HOCK TODAY (BANDAGE KEEPS FALLING OFF) — RIGHT HOCK HAS SEVERE INSTABILITY DUE TO NATURE OF WOUNDS. AMPUTATION OF RIGHT HINDLIMB LIKELY INEVITABLE. NEW HOPE LOOKING FOR PLACEMENT. IF NO PLACEMENT RECOMMEND EHR DUE TO MEDICAL CONDITION ——————————————————————————————————- BAR. BCS 6/9. FRIENDLY. UNABLE TO AMBULATE PE: EENT NUCLEAR SCLEROSIS, PLN WNL, ORAL EXAM MODERATE TO SEVERE DENTAL TARTAR/GINGIVITIS (MISSING MANY TEETH), THORACIC AUSC WNL, ABD PALP WNL, M/S — NON-WEIGHT BEARING ON HINDLIMBS, SKIN/HAIR — SEVERE ROADRASH EXCORIATIONS, ABRASIONS, AND LACERATIONS ON RIGHT MEDIAL HOCK (EXPOSED BONE), RIGHT GROIN, LATERAL LEFT HOCK, LATERAL LEFT ELBOW (EXPOSED JOINT CAPSULE), AND LATERAL RIGHT ELBOW. DX: LATERAL AND VD HINDLIMB/PELVIC XRAYS — RIGHT HOCK HAS BONE FRAGMENT EVIDENT. NO OTHER FRACTURES. MODERATE TO SEVERE SOFT TISSUE SWELLING OF BOTH HINDLIMBS OBSERVED. TX: PROVIDED 1.6ML HYDROMORPHONE IM, 2.0ML RIMADYL SQ, 2.5ML BAYTRIL 100MG/ML IM WOUNDS ALL CLIPPED AND CLEANED WITH CHLORHEXADINE SCRUB — COPIOUS STERILE SALINE LAVAGE PROVIDED TO CLEAN ALL WOUNDS. LATERAL LEFT HOCK WOUNDS CLOSED WITH CRUCIATES (2-0 PDS). LEFT LATERAL ELBOW WOUND CLOSED WITH 0 PDS (PENROSE DRAIN PLACED). RIGHT MEDIAL HOCK WOUND IS VERY SEVERE AND NO PRIMARY CLOSURE POSSIBLE — WOUND CLEANED AND CALCIUM ALGINATE PROVIDED AS DRESSING TO COAX HEALTHY GRANULATION TISSUE. OTHER WOUNDS CLEANED AND SSD OINTMENT APPLIED. ASSESSMENT; SEVERE WOUNDS ON ALL FOUR LIMBS (RIGHT HINDLIMB MOST SEVERE) — AMPUTATION OF RIGHT HINDLIMB MAY BE INDICATED DUE TO EXTENT OF WOUNDS. PLAN; RECOMMEND NEW HOPE PLACEMENT AND FOLLOWUP CARE AT LOCAL VETERINARIAN. IF NO PLACEMENT RECOMMEND EHR DUE TO EXTENT OF WOUNDS. PROVIDING 2.5ML BAYTRIL 100MG/ML IM Q24 FOR 7 DAYS. 100MG TRAMADOL PO BID FOR 7 DAYS. 150MG RIMADYL PO Q24 FOR 7 DAYS. SSD OINTMENT APPLIED Q24 FOR 5 DAYS. DAILY BANDAGE CHANGE OF RIGHT HOCK WOUND. CONTINUED MONITORING WHILE AT BROOKLYN ACC.”
CHAPTER 69 OF ARTICLE 26 PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING:
“That euthanasia with sodium pent be administered only on animals that are “heavily sedated, anesthetized, or comatose.”
I HEREBY REQUEST AN IMMEDIATE NECROPSY BE PERFORMED ON SAID DOG AS WELL AS A FULL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE EXACT NATURE OF THE DOG’S INJURIES AND DEMISE WITH POSSIBLE ARREST OF INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR VETERINARY NEGLECT. PLEASE ACT ON AN IMMEDIATE BASIS TO PREVENT DESTRUCTION OF “EVIDENCE” that could possibly assist in the prosecution of this case.
KATHRYN F. RIVIELLO
PRESIDENT, NO KILL NEW YORK, INC.
501(c) 3 Nonprofit Rescue & Advocacy Organization
Link to video at protest September 20, 2014