Pets Are Wonderful Support, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Neil Frias, Defendant. (2026)

This action arises from a dispute between plaintiff, Pets Are Wonderful Support, Inc., and defendant pro se, Neil Frias, over ownership and custody of two dogs that defendant was fostering for plaintiff.

In January 2026, plaintiff brought an action in Civil Court, New York County (Pets Are Wonderful Support, Inc. v Frias, Index No. CV-000091-26), alleging that defendant was required, but has refused, to return the dogs to plaintiff. Plaintiff sought a writ of replevin and compensatory damages for defendant's alleged breach of the fostering agreement.

At the beginning of February 2026, plaintiff sought to bring on a motion by order to show cause, seeking an order (i) directing defendant to return the two dogs to plaintiff pending determination of the action; and (ii) enjoining defendant from selling or moving the dogs, and from microchipping or registering the dogs as his own property, during the pendency of the action. Plaintiff also sought a temporary restraining order, to impose the restrictions on selling, moving, microchipping, or registering the dogs during the pendency of the motion. Civil Court denied the TRO, and declined to sign the OSC, on the ground that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant that relief.

Two weeks later, plaintiff commenced the current action in this court by summons with notice, seeking the same relief as in the Civil Court action. (See NYSCEF No. 1.) And plaintiff has now sought to bring on a motion by order to show cause, accompanied by a request for a temporary restraining order, seeking the same relief that plaintiff had unsuccessfully requested in its proposed OSC in the Civil Court action. (See NYSCEF No. 2.) Plaintiff did not, however, discontinue (or stay) the Civil Court action.

As a result, as defendant points out (see NYSCEF No. 18 at 1), plaintiff is asserting the same claims for the same relief in two different forums. Given the potential for a waste of resources and inconsistent results, this state of affairs should not continue. This court must instead act to ensure that the two actions are heard together in one court.

This court has two possible ways to accomplish that goal: Removing the Civil Court action to this court under CPLR 325 (b), or sending this action to Civil Court under CPLR 325 (d).

CPLR 325 (b) permits removal of a Civil Court action to this court when Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. This court concludes that CPLR 325 (b) is inapplicable here. Despite Civil Court's ruling otherwise on the proposed OSC, Civil Court does have jurisdiction to grant the relief to which the parties are entitled—both the ultimate relief sought in the nature of replevin, and the kind of preliminary relief sought by plaintiff in the nature of a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Civil Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions for the recovery of chattels. (See New York City Civil Court Act [CCA] § 202.) And in conjunction with an action for the recovery of chattels, Civil Court has authority to grant preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders pursuant to CPLR 7102 (d), 7103 (c), and 7109. (See CCA 209 [b] [1].) Those provisions authorize preliminary relief in replevin actions that is substantively very similar to the requests for relief made by plaintiff in this action and the Civil Court action.

Given that Civil Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to grant much, if not all, of the preliminary and permanent relief sought by plaintiff, this court concludes that the appropriate course is instead to send this action to Civil Court under CPLR 325 (d). To preserve the status quo pending the transfer of this action to Civil Court, plaintiff's request for interim relief is granted, limited to 30 days from entry of this order.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is granted only to the extent that defendant is enjoined until 30 days from entry of this order from selling, moving, microchipping, or registering the dogs Lupe and Mila as defendant's own property, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that this action shall be removed to the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, pursuant to CPLR 325 (d); and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order with notice of its entry upon the Clerk of the Court (using the NYSCEF document type "Notice to the County Clerk - CPLR § 8019 (c)"), who shall forthwith transfer the file in this action to Civil Court, New York County; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff shall contact the staff of the Clerk of the Court and shall cooperate with the staff in effectuating the transfer of the file in this case to the Civil Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the file in this case shall be transferred through the New York State Courts Electronic Filing System in accordance with any applicable Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge governing e-filing in the Civil Court.

DATE 3/3/2026

Gerald Lebovits, J.