Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Stray From the Heart, Inc., Petitioner–Respondent, v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered September 16, 2009, which granted the petition to compel respondents to comply with their obligation under the City Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 17–801 et seq.) to provide full-service animal shelters in all five boroughs, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed for lack of standing.
Petitioner asserts that respondents' failure to provide full-service shelters as required by Administrative Code § 17–803 “impermissibly overburdens the ․ animal rescue and foster organizations of New York City,” such as itself, which provide the otherwise unavailable services at extra cost to themselves. As the primary purpose of the Act is to protect the public health by addressing the overpopulation of “unwanted dogs and cats” (Administrative Code § 17–801), and not to alleviate the burdens voluntarily assumed by animal rescue organizations, petitioner's asserted injury does not constitute “injury in fact” that falls within the “zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by” the Animal Shelters and Sterilization Act (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004] ). Nor does this case involve exceptional circumstances that would warrant a finding of standing, such as a class of individuals who have suffered injuries the Act is intended to guard against and cannot seek relief on their own behalf (see e.g. Mixon v. Grinker, 157 A.D.2d 423 [1990]; Grant v. Cuomo, 130 A.D.2d 154 [1987], affd 73 N.Y.2d 820 [1988]; see also Henry v. Isaac, 228 A.D.2d 558 [1996] ).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4503N
Decided: April 19, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)