People v. Arroyo

In People v. Arroyo, 3 Misc 3d 668 (NYC Crim Ct, Kings Cnty 2004) defendant refused to provide medical care to his dog, which was terminally ill with an ulcerated mammary tumor, due to "moral beliefs and limited finances." Id. at 679. People v. Curcio, a later case decided by the same court, distinguished Arroyo on the following grounds. Curcio supra at 911. First, the Arroyo court was asked to decide on a motion to dismiss on grounds of constitutional vagueness as applied to that defendant, not on grounds of facial sufficiency. Id. at 911-912. Second, the decision followed a Huntley hearing, and was based on evidence gathered there, including defendant's moral justifications for inaction. Id. at 912. Third, the Arroyo court found it significant that defendant's choice was "not part of a pattern of neglect," and noted that defendant's other animals were allowed to remain with him. Id. T he Curcio court found "that arguments regarding whether the alleged conduct indicates a pattern of neglect' and whether the animal's suffering is unjustifiable are ill-suited for resolution on a motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency." Id. The Curcio court also recognized that similar challenges to facial sufficiency are found in these types of animal medical neglect cases as are found in child neglect "home alone" cases, and that similarly, "factual issues of this nature render cases of failure to provide medical care to an animal under A.M.L. 353 particularly unsuitable for determination on motion, and except in the most extreme cases, are best reserved for trial." Id.