People v. FarrellPeople v. Farrell
| People v Farrell |
| April 10, 2025 |
| Rivera, J. |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, September 24, 2025 |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Farrell, Appellant. |
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Appeal, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Ulster County Court (Bryan E. Rounds, J.), entered November 17, 2022. County Court (1) reversed an order of the Kingston City Court (Philip W. Kirschner), which had granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument alleging one count under Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 and dismissed the accusatory instrument; (2) reinstated the accusatory instrument; and (3) remitted to City Court for further proceedings.
HEADNOTE
Crimes
- Cruelty to Animals
- Failing to Provide Sustenance
- Facial Sufficiency of Accusatory Instrument
The accusatory instrument charging defendant with violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 by failing to provide his dog "sustenance" based on allegations that he allowed the dog "to live with the debilitating medical condition of Spondylosis, causing chronic pain and suffering," that the dog was "infested with fleas [and had] a mass on his spine and a mass near his heart," and that he "den[ied] the animal access to veterinary care" was facially insufficient. The accusatory instrument lacked nonhearsay allegations that defendant deprived the dog of veterinary care, leading to his debilitating conditions. The instrument failed to allege how the investigator became aware of the dog's conditions and there was no corresponding veterinary diagnosis attached to the instrument or assertion that a veterinarian examined the dog. The instrument did not indicate whether these afflictions were visible to the naked eye, and therefore it could not be inferred that the investigator personally observed them. Moreover, a flea infestation does not necessarily require veterinary care, and the instrument did not allege that the dog suffered complications from the flea infestation requiring specialized medical aid.
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Mitchell H. Spinac, Kingston, for appellant. I. Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness as applied to veterinary care. (Huddleston v United States,
Emmanuel C. Nneji, District Attorney, Kingston (Sohil Sharedalal, Joan Gudesblatt Lamb and Felicia Raphael of counsel), for respondent. I. Section 353 of the Agriculture and Markets Law is not void for vagueness as applied to veterinary care. (Hill v Colorado,
Legal Action Network for Animals, Great Neck (Nora Constance Marino of counsel), for Legal Action Network for Animals, amicus curiae. I. The meaning of the word "sustenance" in Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 includes medical/veterinary care for an animal. (Colon v Martin,
{**
The accusatory instrument charging defendant Christopher Farrell with failure to provide necessary sustenance in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 is facially insufficient. Therefore, City Court properly dismissed the indictment.
According to the prosecution and as set forth in the affidavit of errors, an investigator for the Ulster County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a call regarding a dog in distress in the City of Kingston. The investigator found the dog in the middle of the road, unable to easily stand or{**
The investigator filed a sworn accusatory instrument based on his "knowledge and investigation/information and belief," charging that "defendant did intentionally, knowingly and unlawfully commit the Misdemeanor of Failure to Provide Necessary Sustenance" (emphasis omitted) in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353. That section, entitled "Overdriving, torturing and injuring animals; failure to provide proper sustenance," provides, in relevant part, that
"[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 [themselves] 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 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."
The instrument does not include the background information included in the affidavit of errors, but alleges that on a specified date and time in Kingston, defendant allowed a "Burmese [sic] Mountain Dog known as 'Mogley' . . . to live with the debilitating medical condition of Spondylosis, causing chronic pain and suffering; as well as being infested with fleas, a mass on his spine and a mass near his heart; denying the animal access to veterinary care." The investigator asserted that defendant "stated the dog has never visited a vet and Mogley is going to die anyway."
Defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument, arguing that the instrument was facially insufficient and on the ground that section 353 is void for vagueness as applied to{**
One commentator has described section 353 as "truly a behemoth criminal statute, containing 322 separate charging theories in its principal passages alone" (Jed L. Painter, Supp Prac Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Agriculture and Markets Law § 353). We need not plow through this "inelegant coagulation" to resolve this appeal (id.). A straightforward application of our well-established rules makes plain that the accusatory instrument is facially insufficient.
"A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution" (People v Dreyden,
{**
The accusatory instrument alleges that Mogley suffered from spondylosis, which it does not define but which it asserts caused Mogley chronic pain and suffering.[FN4] The instrument further alleges that Mogley had a mass on his spine and near his heart. However, the instrument fails to allege how the investigator became aware of these conditions and there is no corresponding veterinary diagnosis attached to the instrument or assertion that a veterinarian examined Mogley. Moreover, the instrument does not indicate whether these afflictions were visible to the naked eye, and therefore we cannot infer from these allegations that the investigator personally observed them. These hearsay allegations are thus insufficient to support the charge.
The remaining allegations in the instrument consist of, first, the investigator's statement based on what we infer were his personal observations that Mogley was "infested with fleas," and, second, the defendant's statements to the investigator, which fall within a hearsay exception, that Mogley "has never visited a vet and" that he was "going to die anyway." The prosecution argues that even if we do not consider the conclusory allegations of Mogley's medical conditions, these other allegations are sufficient to charge defendant with a deprivation of{**
To be clear, an accusatory instrument charging a violation of section 353 need not include documentation from a veterinarian, especially in those cases where the conditions are visible or palpable. The investigator did not allege any facts in support of [*4]such a conclusion. The investigator also failed to describe the conditions under which he first observed Mogley—splayed in the middle of a traffic lane and barely able to move—which might have allowed for an inference that the dog was mistreated or neglected to the point of being in extremis.
In sum, the factual allegations and inferences to be drawn from the accusatory instrument are insufficient to "establish every element of the offense charged" (Kalin,
Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
Order reversed and order of Kingston City Court dismissing the accusatory instrument reinstated.
Footnote 1:The prosecution and amici also refer to Mogley as "Mowgli" and defendant uses no name, simply calling him "the dog." We refer to him by the name alleged in the accusatory instrument.
Footnote 2:We reject the prosecution's conclusory assertion that the instrument should be considered a misdemeanor complaint as that claim is belied by the record.
Footnote 3:To the extent the prosecution contends that the instrument asserts a separate charge of cruelty for failure to provide necessary medical care, the instrument's express language forecloses any such reading.
Footnote 4:Spondylosis, or spondylosis deformans,
"is a common degenerative disorder of the spinal column. . . .
@f1@FNBLK"In dogs, the most common area affected is the lumbar vertebrae, or lower back around the hips. . . . This condition causes a noninflammatory, irreversible damage to the spinal vertebrae, which can result in loss of function and mobility issues. . . .
@f1@FNBLK"It is estimated that up to 70% of 9-year-old dogs are affected" (Barri J. Morrison, Spondylosis Deformans in Dogs, PetMD, Jan. 6, 2023, https://www.petmd.com/dog/conditions/musculoskeletal/spondylosis-deformans-dogs [accessed Mar. 16, 2025]).