This letter of complaint is not an
uncommon example of the treatment of animals and the public by CACC. Those who wish to contact the writer can email him at
SRAC and we will forward the message info@shelterreform.org
Joseph and Avigyle
Gorodischer
New York, New
York 10025
Honorable Rudolph W. Giuliani
Mayor - City of New York
City Hall
New York, NY
10007
January 31, 2001
Dear Mayor Giuliani:
I am writing this letter to complain about the treatment of my dog by the
Center for Animal Care and Control's Manhattan Shelter located at 326 East 110th Street, New York, NY 10128, and, specifically, the callous
attitude and reprehensible actions taken by Douglas M. Mansfield, the CACC's secretary and general counsel.
On the morning of January 21, 2001, our dog, Oliver, a four month old Great
Pyrenees, disappeared from our apartment. We searched our entire neighborhood
for the better part of the day, but could not locate him. We called every
police precinct, every veterinarian, and the animal shelters in our community,
all to no avail.
On the morning of January 22, 2001, we received a call from the CACC shelter in Manhattan
that a dog fitting Oliver's description was at the shelter. We immediately ran
to the shelter, identified Oliver and presented the documentation certifying
that he was our dog.
The CACC's shelter personnel told us that a woman
brought Oliver to the shelter the previous day, but the specific circumstances
surrounding his disappearance and arrival at the shelter remain unclear.
Nevertheless, we expected to take Oliver home with us but were told that,
pursuant to a newly enacted New York City administrative law, Oliver would have
to be sterilized prior to his release from the shelter and that the
sterilization procedure would take place on Thursday afternoon on January 25,
2001, almost five days after Oliver's arrival at the shelter. We were told that
in the interim period Oliver would have to remain at the shelter.
We were disappointed by this news and asked that Oliver be returned to us,
despite the administrative law, on the grounds that we were contractually
obligated to sterilize Oliver pursuant to our contract with his breeder. When
this request was denied we promptly called our licensed veterinarian and asked
him to call the CACC shelter on our behalf. He called
and explained, in no uncertain terms, that in his professional opinion Oliver
should not be sterilized until he was six months old and certified that Oliver
was scheduled for sterilization in March. The veterinarian even proposed that
Oliver be released against a guaranteeing bond refundable to us at such time
upon our satisfactorily demonstrating that Oliver was sterilized. His
suggestions were categorically denied.
Our main objective was to get Oliver out of the shelter and its sub-par
conditions because we worried for his health and were concerned that the poor
care he would receive would traumatize him at this early stage of his
development. The CACC staff informed us that they do
not care about our concerns and that if we disagreed with their intended
procedures we would have to contact Douglas Mansfield, the general counsel.
I spoke with Mansfield on January 23rd, 2001
and he insisted that the new city
law required our puppy to be sterilized prior to his release. I was skeptical
of his interpretation of this law since I could not believe that the
legislature would force a procedure to an animal that ignores the best interest
of his health and welfare. Mansfield
refused to yield and I indicated that I would consult with an attorney to
determine whether, in fact, the law required such an insensible result in this
case.
My skepticism regarding Mansfield's
improper application of the law to our puppy was confirmed by my attorney who
determined that sterilizing Oliver is not consistent with the legislative
intent of the law and that the statute should be read in a manner that allows
for Oliver's release without sterilizing him. The law's sterilization
requirement was intended to apply to the adoption of stray, unwanted and
abandoned dogs in order to curb the health and safety hazards associated with
the overpopulation of such dogs. The legislature certainly did not intend to
force owners to sterilize their beloved pets against their will merely because
the dog fortuitously arrived at a CACC shelter. This
is certainly the case where sterilization is against the better judgement of a licensed veterinary professional.
My attorney contacted Mansfield, but Mansfield refused to
accept any reasonable or plausible position that would obviate the need to
sterilize our puppy and stated that only a court order would enjoin him from
sterilizing Oliver. Mansfield
further stated that since he drafted the new law, he is the final arbiter in
deciding its determination and application. Mansfield's callousness is reprehensible
because he knew that we wanted Oliver to be released from the shelter as soon
as possible and that our obtaining a court order was not feasible as it would
further delay Oliver's release. In this coercive manner, Mansfield was able to impose his unreasonable
actions against our puppy.
At this point, realizing that Mansfield
would not release Oliver and that a court action would take a significant
amount of additional time, we reluctantly agreed to the sterilization
procedure. However, to expedite the process and to ascertain that a licensed
and competent veterinarian would be engaged, we asked that our veterinarian be
permitted to perform the procedure. This is expressly allowed under the law, as
the statute requires that the dog must be "sterilized by a licensed
veterinarian." Knowing that his actions were beyond recourse at the time, Mansfield categorically
declined our request stating that the CACC retains
veterinarians that do the job. Indeed, Mansfield
imposed his unfettered mandates and protocol because he knew we were pressed
for time and we could not challenge his unreasonable determinations.
However, Mansfield
perpetrated his most egregious abuse of authority in this case by his vindictively
denying my wife and three young children the opportunity of seeing Oliver while
he was at the shelter, thereby further exacerbating their trauma surrounding
his disappearance and sterilization. Mansfield
implemented his arbitrary decision in a surreptitious manner by calling the
shelter in advance of my family's arrival and instructing the shelter's
personnel to refuse to allow my family to see Oliver. Moreover, when questioned
by my attorney regarding this action, Mansfield
stated that he denied access to my family "based solely on his
discretion." Mansfield's
action was without any legal authority and constituted a reprehensible
violation of his position of power.
Finally, on the evening of January 25, 2001, after undergoing the
prematurely unnecessary sterilization procedure, Oliver was released. Our
concerns regarding the conditions at the shelter were confirmed as Oliver
returned emaciated, scared and anemic. His hair was matted from his own urine,
he had no appetite and has none to this date, and he had projectile diarrhea
which prompted an unscheduled veterinary visit that cost us $170.00 in care and
medications. Absent Mansfield's
arrogance and the CACC shelter's indifference, this
result would have been avoided.
In sum, the CACC's indifference proves that the
agency is not maintaining its mandate of caring for the animals in its domain.
Further, Mansfield's
repugnant actions and abuse of power prove that the he lacks the judgement required to maintain his position of authority.
More importantly, Mansfield's wanton disregard of the animals' best interests
and officious actions in this case prove that he lacks the requisite
qualifications to be an advocate for the CACC, an
organization that should be focused on the well-being of the animals in its
care. In the instant case, Mansfield
placed his insolent pride in authoring the new legislation and in his ability
to flex his authority above and beyond the best interest of our puppy.
Accordingly, I hereby respectfully request that, prior to its obtaining
another city contract to provide care for abandoned or unwanted dogs and cats, the CACC is investigated to
ascertain that it is providing the best care possible to such animals. Further,
I recommend that Mansfield
be strongly reprimanded for his actions and possibly removed from his position
as the general counsel for the CACC.
I thank you in advance for your prompt attention regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
/s/ Joseph Gorodischer
cc: Peter Vallone -
Speaker New York City Council
Linda Vassall - Director, DOH
Bureau of Veterinary Public Health Services
Edward Boyce - Assistant Director, DOH Bureau of
Veterinary Public Health Services
Neal Cohen, MD - Commissioner, NYC Department of Health
Kathryn E. Freed - Chair, New York City Council Contracts Committee
Victor Robles - Chair, New York City Council Health Committee
Mark Green - NYC Public Advocate
Bill Perkins - Councilmember - District 9
Marilyn Haggarty-Blohm - Executive Director - Center
for Animal Care and Control, Inc.
Douglas M. Mansfield - General Counsel - Center for Animal Care and Control,
Inc.
Edward Markovich, Esq.