Man hits Parks Department horse in face, but can’t be charged: sources By Rich Calder and Max Jaeger July 29, 2019 | 3:47pm |  Man hits Parks Department horse in face, but can’t be charged: sources Instead, the officers slapped Ruiz with a $100 ticket for allegedly smoking a hookah in the park and a disorderly-conduct violation punishable by up to 15 days in jail or a fine of up to $250, according to copies of the citations. The Parks Department claimed it didn’t put its hoof down because Teddy wasn’t seriously injured. “Teddy is a valued member of our Parks Enforcement Patrol team. As such, his safety is of concern and we are happy that he was not seriously injured during this unacceptable incident,” said spokeswoman Crystal Howard. But the head of the DC 37 Local 983 union representing PEP officers said they didn’t make the collar because the cops have told them the charges wouldn’t stick and the city is afraid of lawsuits claiming false arrest. “Our members are no longer making the arrests because now they have to worry about a liability issue of making a false arrest,” said the union’s president Joe Puleo. “It’s about time that the Parks Department stop putting these horses in harm’s way.” Animal-rights lawyer Karen Copeland of Manhattan was outraged that Ruiz didn’t face stiffer penalties, arguing that the uniformed parks officers were “acting under the color of authority” when their animal was attacked. “That’s striking out at that authority,” she said, comparing it to bashing a police cruiser with a hammer. “I think it was also animal cruelty. It was unprovoked and there’s absolutely no defense to an act against an animal like that.” Copeland noted that, if not for Teddy’s training and the control exercised by his rider, the horse could have reared back and bolted — potentially injuring both of them and bystanders. Ruiz could not be reached for comment.   ” - Rich Calder and Max Jaeger

New York Post

Giving shelter Story By: LIZ FINNEGAN4/4/2019 OAKDALE—For the past six and a half years, Maryann Hamilton, a resident of Birchwood on the Green co-op complex, has been permitted to take care of seven stray and/or feral cats on the grounds of the complex, feeding them and providing shelter. However, recently, Hamilton received a notice from an attorney representing the co-op board that states, while citing “hazardous conditions,” she must remove the shelters and stop feeding the cats by April 25, 2019. That’s something she said she’s neither willing nor by law able to do. And so as the target date nears, Hamilton said she’s very concerned about what will happen to the animals that have become dependent on her help. This newspaper had the opportunity to accompany Hamilton on her morning routine. Every day she drives her car over to a secluded section of the complex that’s adjacent to a sump and opens the unlocked chain-link fence gate. Behind the fence, on any given day, one or more of the seven cats – Racoony, George, Jingles, Shadow, Gigi, Bold or Cookie – emerge from housing made from scrap wood and tarp, and await the bowls of both dried and wet food that Hamilton puts down for their meal throughout the day. On very cold mornings, she places hand warmers between the bowls “so the food doesn’t freeze,” she said. She funds most of the food, save for occasional donations, and said she doesn’t mind doing it at all.  Racoony and Jingles stopped by the day we were there. The cats look happy as she bends down to greet them and pat the top of one of their heads. “You hear that?,” Hamilton asks with a smile. “Ferals don’t meow, but these guys do.” According to Hamilton, a former superintendent of the complex who retired in February first cared for the cats. “These were his cats; he took care of them,” Hamilton said. “I was the rescuer who helped him,” adding that she trapped and brought all of the cats to be inoculated and neutered before returning them to the property. “I was on the [co-op] board at the time and there were other board members who helped. Maintenance helped and management also helped. But now there’s new management,” she said. “Boards change, rules change, but you can’t change something like this because this is now their shelter. And it’s against the law.” According to New York State Agriculture and Markets law 353, essentially removing the accustomed means of sustenance from a domestic animal or even those in the wild is considered an act of cruelty and is a misdemeanor. Hamilton points out that some are feral while others are stray, and notes that stray cats are those that had once been domiciled but then were either lost or abandoned. “They’re not here because they want to be here; they’re here because of irresponsible pet owners,” she said. Hamilton, a retired educator, said that the area is always cleaned up and she takes the responsibility of making certain it is done routinely. She said that the same number of cats has not changed over the years and that “these cats will die off by attrition.” And that’s why she said she’s having a difficult time understanding why there is now a problem. “We’re willing to do whatever is possible to address any concerns about liability,” said Hamilton’s attorney, Karen Copeland. Although Copeland said the possibility exists for legal action, she hopes it doesn’t come to that. “My hope is that we can negotiate for a resolution,” she said. Hamilton is hoping for a good outcome as well. “It’s all about the cats,” she said.  ” - Giving shelter

Suffolk County News

The fur is flying at a Long Island co-op complex where an animal-loving resident is caring for a colony of stray cats living on the grounds. Maryann Hamilton — who’s fed the seven kitties every morning for the past several years — got a letter from the co-op’s lawyer demanding that she “remove” them from behind a fence at the Birchwood on the Green development in Oakdale. Lawyer Andrew Troia told the retired teacher to get rid of the cats by April 25, when a gate in the fence will be locked to “preclude individuals not employed by the cooperative housing corporation from accessing this area.” Hamilton, 68, said a former superintendent at the complex built shelters and feeding stations for the cats in the woods. “This is their home,” she said of feline friends Jingles, Cookie, Shadow, Gigi, Bold, Raccoony and George. “They’re not criminals, I’m just feeding them.” Hamilton’s lawyer, Karen Copeland, also noted that New York state law “prohibits depriving an animal of sustenance,” which is a misdemeanor. Co-op board president Jane Sheridan didn’t return a request for comment.   ” - Long Island co-op wants woman and the cats she takes care of to scram

New York Post

  Not everyone froze their tail off in Times Square by choice.   The NYPD brought a contingent of police dogs to the Crossroads of the World as part of its massive New Year’s Eve security crackdown — but didn’t put them in winter coats! The Post spotted three German shepherds and a Belgian Malinois braving Sunday’s cold as they trotted and jumped alongside their human partners, while the mid-afternoon mercury hovered around 15 degrees with a wind chill of just 1 degree.   But one K-9 — a German short-haired pointer named Sully — looked miserable, sitting on his haunches and shivering at 47th Street and Seventh Avenue.   At one point, the poor creature, wearing only a ballistic vest that left much of his torso exposed, “I think he’d rather be home,” said Sully’s uniformed partner, who was bundled in bulky layers against the sub-freezing weather.   Lawyer Karen Copeland, who bills herself as the city’s “pet attorney,” was outraged, saying: “Dogs can’t speak for themselves to complain of discomfort, but they feel pain and suffer in the cold, as humans do.   “I know the NYPD takes good care of its dogs, so I see no excuse for failing to provide for a warm coat in frigid conditions.” Although it’s commonly believed that fur makes a dog resistant to cold weather, that’s not necessarily true — and those with short hair “feel the cold faster because they have less protection,” according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.   The NYPD wouldn’t say how many dogs were assigned to patrol Times Square, saying, “We don’t discuss staffing levels.”   A spokesperson added: “The handlers are responsible for the care [and] well-being of their canine partners.” Additional reporting by Sarah Trefethen” - Brian Zak, Stephanie Pagones, Bruce Golding, Sarah Trefethen

New York Post

A self-styled Ace Ventura lost her own dog for good when a high-end Upper West Side veterinary clinic allowed an unlicensed worker to perform surgery on the pooch. Six-year-old bull terrier Spanky died on the operating table at Gotham Veterinary Center on Columbus Avenue Nov. 23, 2015, according to owner Jane Colton. Last month, the clinic’s owners pleaded guilty to the state Board of Regents, which licenses vets, for allowing the unqualified technician to pull one of Spanky’s teeth. Gotham agreed to pay a $5,000 fine, according to a letter the state sent Colton. “Five-thousand [dollars] to the state for my 1-in-a-million dog. How can you put a monetary value on something that is priceless?” Colton sobbed to a reporter Wednesday. She did not order a necropsy on the pooch, but both she and Gotham believe the death was related to Spanky’s anesthesia, according to both parties. Colton, a former flight attendant, has made headlines by helping New Yorkers reunite with their lost pets, prompting The New York Times to call her the “Ace Ventura of the pet press” in 2001. When Colton brought Spanky to Gotham Veterinary, vet technician Patricia Dominguez diagnosed the dog and laid out treatment options, according to Colton, who said Dominguez assured her “we have a really good anesthesiologist.” But when Dominguez operated on Spanky, she wasn’t licensed to perform the surgery. Actual veterinarians must complete 60 credit hours of undergrad work and another four years of college culminating in a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, according to the state.  Spanky An anesthesia log for the operation was signed by vet Christina Carbonell, as well as by Dominguez and a second tech whom the state has not implicated in any wrongdoing. The state Education Department notified Colton in September 2016 that it was also “proceeding forward with penalty charges” against Carbonell and Dominguez, Colton said. The state did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and neither did Dominguez. Carbonell could not be reached. GVC founder Bonnie Brown tried to excuse her staffers, claiming ignorance of the law and saying everyone allows techs to do vet work. “I actually didn’t even know that. Most practices — almost all practices — have regular licensed technicians or unlicensed technicians pulling teeth. It’s been that way in the field forever,” Brown said. Dominguez “spent three specialty years training in dentistry and passed extensive course work. A very, very capable person,” Brown continued. But GVC should have known better, according to pet attorney Karen Copeland. “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse from liability,” she said. “This person could have been incredibly competent but if you don’t have the license you can’t do it.”   ” - My Dog Was Killed by an Unlicensed Pet Surgeon - by Max Jaeger, Reuven Fenton

New York Post

The fur is flying at a Long Island condo complex where a disabled woman faces nearly $11,000 in fines for keeping two cats instead of just one — even though the manager there has personally cared for the critters. Elizabeth Colaianni said she brought the tuxedo-pattern kitties with her in 2008 after purchasing her one-bedroom unit at Leisure Village in Ridge. Condo manager Virginia Young saw feline brothers Rocky and Mickey in their travel crates on moving day, and since then has fed and cleaned up after them while their owner was in the hospital, Colaianni said. But the condo board went ballistic when Colaianni, 58, who uses two canes or a walker to get around, won authority from the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission to install a ramp to her front door, according to discrimination complaints she has filed with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Colaianni alleges that since the ramp was installed in 2012, the board has illegally retaliated against her by imposing $250-a-month fines, plus legal fees, for violating the development’s one-pet-only rule. The latest warning letter from the Leisure Village Association put the total amount owed at $10,675 as of mid-January. Colaianni said she paid the first $250 fine, and several subsequent monthly fines of $100 each — even though the condo association only charges $10 a head for human roommates. But when the penalty suddenly got jacked up to $250 a month, she said she could no longer afford it on her $78,000 salary as an IT customer-service worker. “I can’t even imagine that they’re asking me to take one of my children and get rid of one of my children. I can’t even wrap my head around it,” Colaianni said through tears. Colainanni’s lawyer, Karen Copeland, said Colaianni had a doctor’s note saying the 9-year-old cats served as “emotional support animals” and called the demand that she keep only one “unthinkable and heartless.” HUD said it was still investigating Colaianni’s complaints. Leisure Village board president Carol Leonard, Young and the condo association’s lawyers did not return requests for comment. Right: Colaianni outside her home at Leisure Village in Ridge, Long Island.Photo: Victor Alcorn  ” - Jennifer Bain and Bruce Golding

New York Post - Disabled Woman Fighting Condo's One-Cat-Only Rule

A disabled woman who lives with her five little dogs in her home in the projects is refusing to roll over and get rid of them on the Housing Authority’s command. Tanya Boisseau, 60, is challenging an NYCHA crackdown on her Shih Tzus, which share her East Harlem one-bedroom apartment in the Taft Houses. “They are my babies,” Boisseau told The Post through tears. “I know they are dogs, but I don’t call them that, and I get offended when people do. They are my kids.” The former Rikers Island correction officer, who uses a wheelchair because of a degenerative bone disease, says the pets gave her a reason to live after she was diagnosed with HIV. “They are the only reason I get up in the morning,” she said. The NYCHA limits residents to one pet per apartment and has charged Boisseau with violating the terms of her lease. A hearing is set for Sept. 1. Boisseau’s pack includes mom Mimi Jewels, dad Gizmo, son Racer and daughters Stella Dallas and Flossie. Her pro-bono lawyer, Karen Copeland, accused the NYCHA of treating her client unfairly because it has allowed tenants to keep their pet pit bulls despite a specific prohibition against the breed. Copeland also mentioned a six-year statute of limitations in such cases, pointing out that Boisseau’s had the dogs for at least eight years. “We understand Ms. Boisseau’s attachment to her five dogs, but her tenancy agreement . . . allows her the companionship and registration of one dog,” an NYCHA rep said.   ” - Georgett Roberts and Bruce Golding

New York Post - Woman Fights Housing Authority Order to Get Rid of Her Dogs

Do You Have a Doctor’s Note? Getting a Dog Into a No-Pet Building Kody Keplinger lives in a no-dog building. But because she is legally blind, her landlord allows Corey, a trained service dog, to live with her. Credit - Annie Ling for The New York Times What does it take to get a dog into a no-pet building? The question is becoming a hot topic in New York City. Because depending on whom you ask, the answer is A) a legitimate disability or B) a dubious note from a doctor or therapist. Most people know that federal, state and city laws require building owners and landlords to accommodate tenants who have disabilities — for instance, by waiving a no-pet rule for a blind resident’s guide dog. But word apparently is spreading about how broadly these laws define a disability, allowing people with a wide range of physical and mental conditions to seek waivers for their dogs. Serious depression, chronic pain, AIDS, autism, dementia, cancer and heart disease are just some of the illnesses lawyers say can qualify as disabilities. And as New Yorkers trade advice about this topic in dog parks, elevators and online pet forums, the number of people applying for waivers is increasing “enormously,” said Darryl Vernon, a partner in the law firm Vernon & Ginsburg. Mr. Vernon, who specializes in pet and housing law, cautioned that making your case to a landlord or co-op board takes more than just copying a doctor’s note someone posted online. “You need to show two things,” he said. “One, that you really have a disability within the meaning of the law, not just seasonal depression or the economy is bad. And two, that there’s a connection between the dog and your disability, that the dog is medically helpful.” That still leaves landlords, co-op boards and their legal representatives a lot of gray area in determining what constitutes a legitimate disability, and whether a dog (or other animal) truly helps alleviate it. No-pet buildings worry that granting too many waivers will encourage other tenants to line up with their own doctors’ notes. And buildings must consider the sentiments of residents who chose a dog-free building because of allergies or a bad experience with an unruly animal. But denying a request for a disability accommodation can have negative consequences, too. “No one wants to be held liable for discriminatory conduct,” said Adam Leitman Bailey, a lawyer who represents rental buildings, co-ops and condos. “Most boards leave it up to their attorneys to make these decisions.” Mr. Bailey says he reviews at least one request a month for a waiver of a no-pet rule to allow for a service or emotional-support animal — usually a dog, although other animals, like birds, may qualify. He recommends approving about half of these requests, suggesting a denial if the documentation is thin. “We require a lot of information,” Mr. Bailey said, “and often they can’t provide it.” As an example, he shared a letter from a doctor, submitted on behalf of a patient (whose name was redacted) with Type 2 diabetes and unspecified “chronic medical conditions.” The six-sentence letter mentioned the health benefits of walking a dog (“great exercise”) and the patient’s observation that “spending time with his dog had greatly improved his mood,” but the reasons were deemed insufficient to justify a waiver. A big challenge for building owners, lawyers say, is determining what proof they can ask for in order to establish how a dog helps with a disability, especially when the condition in question is not an obvious physical impairment. The relevant statutes are the federal Fair Housing Act (which defines a disability as a mental or physical condition that “substantially limits” a major life activity), the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The city law is generally considered the broadest of the three, covering “physical, medical, mental or psychological” impairments — which opens the door to a wide range of requests. One woman in a no-dog building who received a waiver illustrates the complexity of some of these cases. Describing her situation on the condition that her name not be published, she listed a succession of challenges that left her depressed: she lost her job; her father died; her mother had to move into an assisted-living facility; and the fate of her father’s dog was up in the air. A neighbor recommended a lawyer with a disability-waiver track record. The lawyer referred her to a therapist, who wrote a lengthy letter describing her anxiety and outlining her family history, ultimately recommending that she be allowed an emotional-support animal — her father’s now-ownerless dog. She secured a second letter from her primary-care physician, who based his note on a sample letter she gave him. “Everything that the two notes said is actually true,” she said, explaining that the dog helps get her out of the house, alleviates her loneliness and eases her depression. Still, she acknowledged that she probably would not have taken on a dog if she hadn’t inherited her father’s pet. “I couldn’t bring her to a shelter because I couldn’t allow her to be killed,” she said. “I was trying to do the right thing by keeping her.” She continued seeing the therapist, and estimated that she spent about $3,000 in legal fees in order to get the waiver approved. Other cases, however, involve blatantly fraudulent attempts to evade the no-dog rule. “Somebody asked for a dog to help them because they weren’t very stable on their feet,” said Dennis H. Greenstein, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw who represents co-op and condominium boards. “The board found out from other residents that they saw that person jogging fairly regularly in Central Park without the dog.”  Mr. Greenstein says he’s seeing more requests for service or emotional-support animals, and estimates that “a tad more are accepted than rejected,” especially when the dog performs a specific task, like reminding the owner to take medication. “I think boards are generally interested in trying to do the right thing,” he said. “They just want to make sure this is not a backdoor way to get a pet in.” To discourage bogus requests, some buildings are drafting rules outlining the conditions for which waivers are granted. Typically, the application includes a note from a doctor or therapist, and proof that the dog has a license from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (and in some cases that it has been registered as a service dog). As part of the approval process, building owners and boards are allowed to ask questions about the materials submitted, so there may be some back-and-forth before a request is acted upon. “It’s not unreasonable for a landlord to make some additional inquiries about the case,” said Karen Copeland, a lawyer who has represented dozens of clients seeking such waivers. Among them: a woman with lung cancer whose dog helped prevent her from smoking cigarettes (“It provided her with a distraction”); someone with Parkinson’s disease (“It was able to diminish his symptoms, like trembling”); and a recovering alcoholic (“The dog gave her social things to do — she could go to a dog park and make friends”). Ms. Copeland also represents Betty Cohen, the owner of a no-dog condominium unit at the Bay Club in Bayside, Queens. Ms. Cohen, who says she suffers from depression, acquired two West Highland terriers and requested a disability accommodation for them. After she submitted letters from her doctors attesting to her condition, the Bay Club said yes to one dog, but notified her that she had to remove the second from the premises by Sept. 30. “I can’t live without both dogs,” Ms. Cohen said. “No matter what it costs or what I have to do, I have to have them.” Barbara Morley, the president of the Bay Club’s board of managers, explained the building’s decision in an e-mail, noting that the documentation Ms. Cohen submitted, which was reviewed by legal counsel, “did not support a need for two dogs.” “Over the last decade we have extended ourselves to accommodate people with special needs who request permission to keep an emotional-support dog,” Ms. Morley wrote, adding that the increase in “comfort dogs” in the building had increased the number of complaints from other residents about dogs barking and soiling carpets. “Many have purchased apartments here because of the no-dog policy,” she said, “and so it is the responsibility of the Board of Managers to consider the concerns and needs of all residents.” As of last week, Ms. Cohen had not decided what she was going to do, but Ms. Copeland said one option would be to submit a discrimination complaint to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Other cases are filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, which investigates complaints about housing discrimination, including claims that an owner or landlord refuses to provide a reasonable accommodation for a disabled individual. The commission can levy penalties and award damages. “If someone comes to us with a service-animal issue,” said Cliff Mulqueen, deputy commissioner and general counselor for the human rights commission, “they’ve stated a claim of discrimination and we have to take the case.” Mr. Mulqueen says that although housing providers may challenge the medical documentation submitted by the resident, they should be careful about adopting rules about service animals once a dog has been approved. “If you start requiring extra insurance or you start penalizing people,” he said, “you’re going to risk running into other issues of discrimination. That’s a really tricky road.” But housing providers do have the right to remove a service dog or an emotional-support animal if it becomes a nuisance — for instance, by barking incessantly or soiling common areas. Kody Keplinger, who is legally blind, had reservations about getting a service dog before deciding to take the plunge earlier this year. One of her concerns was how her building, which doesn’t allow dogs, would deal with her request; another was whether she could handle the responsibility of owning a pet. The trainer from the agency that matched her with a German shepherd named Corey helped ease the transition on both fronts, accompanying her when she spoke with her landlord and emphasizing the training that service dogs receive. “A legitimate concern my landlord did have was whether there would be any peeing in the apartment,” Ms. Keplinger recalled. Describing Corey, she added: “That is something she’s been trained for — she actually goes on command. I take her to a spot and tell her when she should go.” Although Ms. Keplinger’s landlord didn’t challenge her need for a service dog, people at movie theaters and in other public places have accused her of faking her disability. She worries that dishonest requests for service or support animals will have negative repercussions for people who really need them. “Frankly,” she said, “I would rather a few people slip through the cracks and cheat the system than have the regulations made harder on people who need service dogs. It is a very complicated issue, and I understand it’s frustrating for landlords and co-ops. “Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution.” ” - Susan Stellin

New York Times - Getting a Dog Into a No-Pet Building

At Hartley House, a Hardship Pet Case By ROBIN FINN OCT. 24, 2008 Rockville Centre LIKE twin Miss Muffets on a damask tuffet, 90-year-old Mary Pasko and her 13-year-old toy poodle, Coco, recline on a sofa in the immaculate Hartley House co-op from which Coco, and by extension Mrs. Pasko, faces eviction. Shortly after the death of her husband, Mrs. Pasko received Coco, then a puppy, as a gift from her younger daughter, Denise, with the hope that the dog would act as a sort of bereavement assistant after her widowed mother moved in with Denise and her daughter, Alison. It worked. But five years into the arrangement, Denise fell ill with cancer and Mrs. Pasko moved, minus Coco, back to Long Island to live with her other daughter, Joan Anzelone, a retired schoolteacher, at Hartley House, a brick co-op that is bullish on its no-pets policy. Coco’s presence as a frequent visitor was tolerated, but her home was New Hope, Pa., until, in 2007, Denise Pasko died with her mother, and Coco, at her bedside. Doubly bereaved, Mrs. Pasko refused to return to Hartley House without Coco. Ms. Anzelone requested a waiver of the no-pets policy. It was denied. A legal squabble began, as did residents’ accusations that Ms. Anzelone was monkeying with their property values. “I’m not a rule-breaker, I was a teacher for 31 years,” she says, playing hostess in a living room whose focal point — and rallying cry — is an embroidered pillow that reads: The Dog and Its Housekeeping Staff Reside Here. But Hartley House says the dog can’t reside here. “We all understand I’m breaking their rule, but there are rules and there are extenuating circumstances,” Ms. Anzelone says. Coco weighs six pounds, does not bite, bark or shed and is a ripe old 91 in dog years, the age Mrs. Pasko turns in people years next month. That she constitutes a threat to the safety, integrity and property values of Hartley House and its shareholders seems far-fetched to her owner. Mrs. Pasko, a feisty senior and former beauty parlor manager — she bears a faint facial resemblance to the actress Helen Hayes — insisted she would not, could not, live without her dog. Don’t tell Coco this, but Mrs. Pasko once threatened to euthanize them both with pills from her vast collection of medications should the co-op expel Coco. “I think that by the time you’re 90, you deserve to have something of your very own that nobody can take away,” she says, tartly. “She’s my medicine. I don’t think I could make it without her.” Like sweethearts, they send fond gazes in each other’s direction whenever they sigh and shift position: yes, they both have arthritis. And a fondness for lamb chops. And afternoon naps. Photo BATTLING Mary Pasko and her toy poodle, Coco, with Mrs. Pasko” - Robin Finn

New York Times - A Senior Fights for Her Pet and Against Eviction

A poodle named Coco could cost an 89-year-old woman her home on Long Island. Mary Pasko was forced to move into a small Rockville Centre apartment with her only remaining daughter, Joan Anzelone, last year, after a daughter she had been living with in Pennsylvania passed away. Accompanying Pasko was Coco, her 12-year-old gray poodle, who never strays more than two feet from her side. But the co-op firm, 75 Main Avenue Owners Corp., prohibits pets and ordered the dog out. Heartbroken, Pasko tried to get Coco adopted, but found that the pooch’s advanced age made that difficult. Anzelone’s lawyer, Karen Copeland, argues in a housing-discrimination complaint that a 1988 Fair Housing Act amendment says landlords in no-pet buildings must make exceptions for “emotional support” animals. The co-op filed a lawsuit threatening to evict Pasko and her daughter if Coco is not removed. The company’s lawyer declined to comment. Pasko said, “She’s really all I have left.”” - Selim Algar

New York Post - Puppy Love May Get Old Lady Evicted

Join the email list!

Please Join My Email List