6. Defendants JOHN DOEs 1-3 are the Puppy Mill and/or breeders of Umka that

continuously transact business in this State and have a presence in this State as a breeder,

distributor or vendor who places animals in the stream of commerce for profit by their

transporting puppies for sale to Defendants Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy and to other

New York Pet Stores to resale to consumers for profit.

7. At all relevant times Defendants John Does 1-3 conducted commercial business by

intentionally and actively selling and/or distributing puppies to New York residents

and/or entities and derived substantial revenue from said commercial business

transactions in this State by using the ports of New York or the roads and other means of

transportation in the State of New York to transport puppies into this State for profit.

8. Venue is proper in New York County as Plaintiff resides in this County, Defendants’

Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy’s place of business at all times relevant was at 1428

Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10128, the contract was executed there and other causes

of action alleged herein arise from that situs.

FACTS

9. On or about February 4, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a female puppy Brussels Griffon born

on December 5, 2010. Plaintiff named the puppy Umka.

10. Upon information and belief, Defendants Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy advertised

Umka as a purebred Brussels Griffon that can be registered as a pedigreed animal.

11. Plaintiff purchased Umka because she understood from said Defendants that she was a

pedigree and Plaintiff wanted a pedigree dog.

12. On February 4, 2011 Plaintiff signed a contract of sale with said Defendant for Umka at a

price of $1,650, paid to Defendants (the “Contract”)

CONTRACT TERMS

13. The Contract states in part (the numbers below follow the contract paragraphs):

a. 1- “Article 35-D of the General Business Law” applies;

b. 2- Defendant “guarantees your pet for 1 year from the date of whelping for congenital defects (which would adversely affect the life or health of the pet) diagnosed by a licensed veterinarian…with x-rays”

c. 8- “I understand that in NO circumstances will the purchaser ever receive a refund.”

d. 11- “Adoption Dogs are sold as is AND ARE NOT COVERED under any

warranty and/or NYS General Business Law, Article 35-D”

e. Under the New York State Department of Agriculture section “Pursuant to

General Business Law section 753-B, every pet dealer shall deliver to the purchaser …at the time of sale, a written statement in the following form:…(b) Breeders name and address, if known.”

14. Page 2 of the Contract confirms Article 35-D of the General Business Law applies.

UMKA’S MEDICAL CONDITION AND PAIN AND SUFFERING

15. In about July, 2011, Umka started limping and crying in pain.

16. Plaintiff took Umka to a veterinarian who put Umka to sleep the entire day to take x-rays.

17. Umka was diagnosed with a medial patella subluxation disorder of both rear knees and

her hip sockets did not develop correctly.

18. Upon information and belief, Umka’s disorder is genetic from her parents, and she should

not have been sired by dogs with genetic disorders.

19. Umka was only about 10 months old when she had to go through a painful operation.

20. As part of her preparation for surgery, for months Umka had to wear a collar around her

neck to prevent her from licking her injured legs and she had to be kept from running or

jumping, or engaging in normal activities for a puppy because of her knee and hip

disorder.

21. The first operation was on or about October 20, 2011. That entailed opening Umka’s

right rear knee, shaving the bone and inserting her knee back into the socket.

22. Umka had to wear a cast on her leg for a week, and for months thereafter and to date she

cannot walk properly, she cannot engage in regular activities a puppy should engage in

such as running and she has limited walking ability.

23. Umka cannot stand for any normal length of time, forcing her to sit down often or drag

her body with her front legs.

24. Umka is waiting for her next operation on her other knee.

25. Umka’s medical bills directly related to her congenital defect cost Plaintiff and Plaintiff

did pay on September 30, 2011 for a Physical $113.00, October 12, 2011 for X-rays

$384.00 and on October 20, 2011 surgery $1,582.50, totaling $2,079.50.

26. Umka requires future surgeries and medical expenses.

DEFENDANTS DISREGARD PLAINTIFF’S NOTIFICATIONS

27. Upon purchasing Umka, and for months thereafter, Plaintiff requested Umka’s breeder

information pursuant to the contract terms from Defendants Rover, Silverstein and

Foronjy.

28. In about June through October, 2011, Plaintiff notified Defendants Rover, Silverstein

and Foronjy regarding Umka’s genetic disorder.

29. Despite Plaintiff’s requests and notifications within 1 year of the purchase pursuant to the

Contract and other legal rights under the laws in the State of New York, Defendants

refused to respond.

30. Plaintiff to date never received the breeder’s information, name, address, the source of

Umka or whether Umka came from a licensed breeder, nor any contact from a breeder or

Defendants Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy.

31. Upon information and belief, Umka did not come from a licensed breeder and Defendants

Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy deliberately did not provide Plaintiff that information

once they took her money under false pretenses.

PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL

32. Upon information and belief, Defendants Silverstein and Foronjy maintained dominion

and control over the corporate entity Defendant Rover, treated or operated that entity as

their “alter ego” and used Defendant Rover to commit frauds and wrongful conduct

resulting in injury and damages to Plaintiff.

33. Defendants’ Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy’s wrongful conduct and fraud in breaching

the Contract terms, including concealing Umka’s breeder information, and said conduct

being deliberate, is further confirmed because to date they ignored Plaintiff’s January,

2012 and to date clear notice of their wrongdoing publicized in the local and national

media and on the internet that Defendants refused to provide breeder information and

they committed wrongful conduct under the Contract and various laws.

34. In fact, Defendants Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy had notice of this matter because they

were contacted by their insurance carrier via letter about the December 29, 2011

complaint filed against them on behalf of Umka and Elena Zakharaova.

35. Instead of responding to Plaintiff, on October 17, 2011, Defendant Silverstein applied for

a new license from the State of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets to

open a pet store named Barking Babies, LLC at 830 West Jericho Turnpike, Huntingdon,

NY 11743.

36. Defendants’ Silverstein and Foronjy’s fraudulent and wrongful conduct breached their

obligations under the Department of Agriculture and markets license regulating them.

37. Defendants’ Silverstein and Foronjy’s fraudulent and wrongful conduct constitute an

abuse of the privilege of doing business in the corporate form.

38. Defendants’ Silverstein and Foronjy’s engaged in fraudulent and wrongful conduct under

the guise of a corporate entity, abused a State license to commit their misconduct and

breached the Contract and other laws with Plaintiff regulated by State laws.

PETS’ LEGAL RIGHTS TO HUMANE TREATMENT ARE RECOGNIZED

39. At all relevant times herein and to date, the State of New York’s Department of

Agriculture & Markets maintains a staff specifically to inspect pet dealer stores for

compliance of certain standards, specifically “with regard to the health and wellbeing of

the animals in your care”, meaning in the care of the Pet Dealer.

40. Some of the standards of care for animals that the Department mandates are Housing,

retention of inoculation and other records (i.e. Source of Animals), Sanitation, Feeding

and Watering, among other standards of care for the welfare of the animals.

41. The State of New York’s Department of Agriculture & Markets office has a

“Litigation/Penalty unit” that imposes, enforces and collects monetary fines as a civil

penalty against Pet Dealers who do not maintain proper standards of care for pets.

42. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s Pet Lemon Laws brochure

affirmatively states “Pets are truly members of the American family” and “Pets offer

unconditional love and their companionship can provide important physical and

emotional benefits to us.” http://www.ag.ny.gov/bureaus/consumer_frauds/tips/pet_lemon_law.html

43. In Corso v. Crawford Dog and Cat Hospital, Inc. New York, 415 N.Y.S.2d (182 N.Y.

City Civ. Ct., 1979) the court found “A pet is not an inanimate thing that just receives

affection, it also returns it.”

44. New York State has multiple civil and criminal laws protecting pets or as better stated

“companion animals” from harm and abuse, and even permits trusts for the benefit of the

family pet. (Exhibit “A”)

45. The Second District Court of Appeal in California Veterinary Medical Association v.

City of West Hollywood, Cal. App. Lexis 1029 (2007) found that “[A] society’s moral

progress is best judged by its treatment of animals…” (citing a speech by Mahatma

Gandhi, 1931).

46. Umka’s case is not alone as recently, on December 1, 2011, three justices of the Court of

Appeals of Texas in Medlen v. Strickland, 353 S.W.3d 576

(Tex.App.–Fort Worth, 2011) held that “an owner may be awarded damages based on the

sentimental value of lost personal property, and because dogs are personal property” then

sentimental value of a dog are considered damages.”

47. Scientific studies found that dogs are much more intelligent than we know, with emotions

and thought processes similar to a 3 year old child. Adam Miklosi , (2007) Dog

Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition, Oxford University Press; K.Guo, C Hall, S Hall, K

Meints, D Mills (2007) Left Gaze bias in human infants, rhesus monkeys and domestic

dogs. Perception 36 (s) 148.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Umka’s Pain and Suffering)

48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth at paragraphs 1-69, supra, as if

fully set forth herein.

49. At present, New York common law defines pets as “property”

50. Plaintiff requests humanity for Umka in that she be considered a living soul that feels

pain, and that her pain and suffering is recognized by this State and considered as

damages to her.

51. Umka is a living soul with a heart. She feels love and pain.

52. Umka suffers pain every day because of her hip and joint problems as, upon information

and belief, are a direct and proximate result of Defendants purchasing unlawfully bred

animals from Defendant Does puppy mills and unlicensed breeders who improperly

breed, whelp and keep the animals in inhumane conditions and Defendants Rover,

Silverstein and Foronjy know the animals are improperly bred, whelped and kept in

inhumane conditions.

53. As a result, Umka suffers a disorder causing her pain, her legs hurt, she cries when she is

in pain, she drags herself with her front paws, she cannot run like other puppies, she

cannot jump from the furniture without being in pain or whimpering, she endures painful

operations maneuvering her joint sockets and shaving her bones to correct the defects,

she has to wear a cast after her operation and she will in the future be subjected to further

painful medical procedures that will cause her future pain and interfere with her

enjoyment of life.

54. Plaintiff requests the definition of pets sold for profit presently defined as “property”

and/or “goods” be considered a “living being” as opposed to an inanimate object.

55. Plaintiff demands damages for Umka’s past pain and suffering, future pain and suffering

and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of Defendant obtaining, maintaining and selling

Umka who, upon information and belief, Defendant knew she came from an unlicensed

breeder, and/or most likely a Puppy Mill, wherein Umka was not properly bred.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract)

56. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set

forth herein.

57. Plaintiff contracted and paid for a healthy dog.

58. Umka was sold to her with multiple congenital defects.

59. The Contract provided that Umka’s breeder and other information would be provided and

it guaranteed Umka from congenital defects for one year from the purchase date.

60. Defendants refused to provide Umka’s breeder and background information and refused

to honor its guarantee.

61. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the express and implied promises of Defendants to her

detriment as she paid for a healthy dog and received a sick puppy requiring expensive

surgery and more surgery in the future, who suffers pain every day and cannot engage in

normal puppy activities.

62. Defendants breached every implied and express promise made to Plaintiff.

63. Implied in every contract of sale of merchandise are the provisions of the UCC.

64. Plaintiff suffered monetary damages and costs of veterinarian bills and will continue to

suffer such damages as Umka’s health requires medical attention.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Uniform Commercial Code “UCC” Violations)

65. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the all of the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully

set forth herein.

66. GBL §754 provides for certain rights of the consumer within 14 days of the sale, but is

not exclusive, stating “Nothing in this section shall in any way limit the rights or

remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law.”, and that

includes the UCC

67. Under New York State law, dogs are “goods” within the meaning of UCC § 2–105 and

pet stores are “merchants” pursuant to UCC § 2–104.

68. Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) §2-314 “Implied Warranty: Merchantability” warrants

that goods shall be merchantable to pass without objection under the contract description,

are of fair average quality, conform the promise of affirmations of fact as labeled, fit for

the ordinary purpose for which goods of that description are used and implied warranties

may arise from course of dealing or usage if trade.

69. UCC §2–616(2) provides that all contracts are deemed to contain the implied warranty of

merchantability unless the contract expressly excludes or modifies such warranty.

70. Article 2 of the UCC holds a merchant pet store liable for failing to deliver the correct

goods, and such failure results in a non-conforming delivery under Article 2.

71. Said non-conforming delivery is a breach of contract.

72. UCC §2-714 provides that where the buyer has accepted goods and given notification ...

he may recover as damages for any non-conformity of tender the loss resulting in the

ordinary course of events from the seller's breach as determined in any manner which is

reasonable.

73. UCC §2-715 provides Buyer's to obtain incidental and consequential damages, including

expenses related to “injury to person or property proximately resulting from any breach

of warranty.” governing damages in regard to accepted goods, on theory that seller

breached implied warranty of merchantability, and she was not limited to remedies

provided by statute governing sales of animals; dog came within definition of “goods” as

set forth in UCC, and seller was “merchant” within meaning of UCC

74. Umka may be considered a “non-conforming good.”

75. Pursuant to UCC §2–105 Defendant breached the contract by failing to Umka as a

pedigree dog without congenital defects, resulting in a non-conforming delivery to

Plaintiff.

76. Pursuant to UCC §2–601, where there is a breach because the goods fail to conform to

the contract, the buyer, plaintiff, may reject the goods.

77. Plaintiff gave notice to defendants of the non-conformance and pursuant to UCC §2–508

the seller, defendants, have a right to cure the non-conforming delivery by making a

conforming delivery.

78. To effect a cure, the seller Defendants must communicate an unconditional intention to

cure within a reasonable time and compensate the buyer for all the buyer's reasonable

expenses caused by the breach.

79. Defendant did not attempt to cure the problem or compensate Plaintiff.

80. Umka cannot run, play, leap or engage in normal activities that a puppy or dog can

without pain and discomfort.

81. Plaintiff did not get what she bargained for, which is a healthy dog.

82. Plaintiff demands the return of her entire price for Umka of $1,650 with interest from

February 4, 2011, the date of the Contract.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (GBL§753 Violations)

83. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the all of the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set

forth herein.

84. GBL §753-a mandates a veterinary examination of animals before sale.

85. GBL §753-B(2) et seq mandates, among other things, that Defendant, as a pet dealer,

provide (a) the breeder contact information or “the source of the dog”, (b) date of birth

and date Defendant received the dog, (c) dates the dog was examined by a veterinarian

and received any treatment, including worming and vaccinations, (d) a statements by

Defendant confirming there are no known illnesses or congenital or hereditary conditions

adversely affecting the dog’s health at the time of sale (e) notification that a dog residing

in New York must be licensed and a notice placed by the animals cage that "Information

on the source of these dogs and cats and the veterinary treatments received by these dogs

and cats is available for review by prospective purchasers."

86. GBL §753-c mandates Defendant to provide animal pedigree registration documents at

latest 180 days after the purchase and if Defendant violates this mandate the purchaser

may keep the animal and receive obtain a 75% refund of the purchase price.

87. The Contract omits the mandated breeder information and Defendants refused to provide

it despite multiple requests by Plaintiff.

88. Plaintiff was never provided with any of the aforementioned information.

89. Plaintiff demands all damages and remedies under GBL §753.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (GBL §349 Violations)

90. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the all of the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set

forth herein.

91. Under GBL §349, it is unlawful for a business to engage in deceptive acts and practices

unlawful.

92. Defendant engages in the following deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its

business:

93. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from continuing in the business of selling animals in

violation of the GBL aforementioned and from continuing to use its Contract with

deceptive terms that they (a)“guarantee your pet for 1 year from the date of whelping”

when Defendant will not, (b) provide breeder information when they will not and (c)

provide veterinarian examination records before the sale when they do not.

94. Pursuant to the statute, Plaintiff demands actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is

greater, or both damages, an award of damages not to exceed three times the actual

damages up to one thousand dollars, if the court finds the Defendant willfully or

knowingly violated this section and reasonable attorney's fees for her bringing this action

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Fraud)

95. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the all of the allegations set forth hereinabove as if fully set

forth herein.

96. Upon information and belief, Defendants misrepresented that Umka was a purebred

puppy.

97. Defendants misrepresented that they would follow the terms of the Contract by executing

said Contract with Plaintiff and taking Plaintiff’s money in consideration of those

contract terms when Defendants did not intend to comply with the Contract terms.

98. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew they could not comply with said Contract

terms knowing Umka was not a purebred puppy and knowing that she came from an

unregulated Breeder and/or Puppy Mill.

99. Said misrepresentations were material omissions of fact which were false and known to

be false by Defendant, and made for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to rely upon said

material misrepresentations.

100. Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendants’ misrepresentations and was damaged

in receiving a puppy with congenital defects mandating thousands of dollars of medical

expenses.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Punitive Damages)

101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the all of the allegations set forth hereinabove as if

fully set forth herein.

102. Defendants’ conduct constitutes gross, wanton, reckless conduct, without regard

to the rights of Plaintiff or Umka as a living being, or willful fraud or other morally

culpable conduct.

103. Defendants misconduct upon Plaintiff is not an isolated incident in their

businesses as Pet Dealer and Puppy Mill and or “breeder” of a legitimate business, but

are a gross and wanton fraud upon the public to sire, breed, distribute and sell to

consumers defective puppies or “goods

104. Defendants’ conduct has been such a gross disregard of their contractual

obligations to consumers and to the puppies and their parents who have rights under

federal and State Agriculture laws to be properly cared for, not abused, as to constitute

morally culpable conduct.

105. Plaintiff as a consumer, like other consumers, was in a fiduciary relationship with

Defendants Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy as they were State licensed Pet Dealers held to

certain higher standards to provide healthy puppies and proper care to those puppies to

the consuming public relying on defendants’ representations as licensed dealers

upholding those standards.

106. Defendants did not uphold those standards in a number of ways, including they

refused to provide Plaintiff with Umka’s pedigree papers, where she was raised and came

from and their secreting that information is more suspect of their misconduct,

notwithstanding it is patently unlawful to secrete that information.

107. Upon information and belief, Defendants reprehensible misconduct is further

proven as they knew about this lawsuit because it was highly publicized in the media and

the internet, yet Defendants cowardly refused to come forward to rectify the issues,

making matters worse by causing Plaintiff to expend more money to locate Defendants.

108. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and Umka for punitive damages in an amount to

be determined; however, it is noted that Defendant Silverstein lists in his license

applications he sells about 200 puppies annually. Averaging that at about $1,000 each,

defendants Rover, Silverstein and Foronjy are running at least a $200,000 operation that

could and should sustain a punitive damage award of in the least $20,000.00

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as follows:

(a) Damages to be determined for Umka’s present and future pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life;

(b) the full return of the sales price plus interest from the date of sale;

(b) Consequential damages, including all veterinary and medical costs and expenses related to Umka’s care and future care;

(c) pierce the corporate veil of Defendant Rover to hold all other Defendants named herein personally liable because Defendants as the owners of the entity Defendant Rover, through their domination, abused the privilege of doing business in the

corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or an injustice against Plaintiff and Umka, such that this court in equity should intervene;

(d) attorney’s fees and the costs and disbursements of this action;

(d) declaratory judgment and enjoining Defendants from selling animals and using a contract with terms Defendants do not honor;

(f) punitive damages in an amount to be determined; and

(f) such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: February 8, 2012 Yours, etc., New York, New York _____________________ Susan Chana Lask, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369 New York, NY 10001 (917) 300-1958

EXHIBIT A

Statute Name Citation Summary

NY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes

NY AGRI & MKTS §§ 331 ‐ 379; NY PENAL LAW § 130.20 

These New York statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. "Animal" includes every living creature except a human being. A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both. Exclusions include properly conducted scientific tests, experiments or investigations, involving the use of living animals approved by the state commissioner of health.

NY - Disaster - § 23. Local comprehensive emergency management plans; § 410. Establishment of animal response teams

NY EXEC § 22, 23; NY AGRI & MKTS § 410 

In New York, disaster emergency plans must include utilization and coordination of programs to assist individuals with household pets and service animals. Particular emphasis must be on evacuation, shelter and transportation options following a disaster.

NY - Dog - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws

NY AGRI & MKTS § 108, 110, 118, and 123‐b; NY GEN OBLIG § 11‐107; NY CIV RTS § 47, 47‐a to c 

The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

NY - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws

McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 106 ‐127, 331 ‐ 332, 400 ‐ 410; McKinney's ECL §§ 11‐0529, 11‐0901 ‐ 0931, 11‐2117; McKinney's General Business Law §§ 399‐aa, 751 ‐ 755; McKinney's General Municipal Law § 88, 209cc; McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11‐107; McKinney's Lien Law § 183; McKinney's Public Health Law § 1310, 505‐a, 2140 ‐ 2146; McKinney's Town Law § 130; McKinney's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 601 

These New York statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include state licensing requirements, the sale of dogs by pet dealers, rabies control laws, and provisions related to dogs and hunting.

NY - Domestic Violence - § 842. Order of protection

NY FAM CT § 842  This New York law pertains to the issuance of protection orders. In July of 2006, the amendment that allows companion animals owned by the petitioner of the order or a minor child residing in the

household to be included in the order was signed into law. The law specifically allows a court to order the respondent to refrain from intentionally injuring or killing, without justification, any companion animal the respondent knows to be owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by the petitioner or a minor child residing in the household.

NY - Enforcement - Agriculture and Markets Law - Article 3. Investigation; Practice and Procedure; Violations; Penalties.

McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 32 - 45-a

This article outlines the procedures and penalties for violations of New York's Agriculture and Markets Law.

NY - Impound - § 88. Disposition of stray or unwanted dogs by municipality

NY GEN MUN § 88 This New York statute provides that a municipality may by local law or ordinance provide that stray or unwanted dogs be given to an agency which trains seeing eye dogs or to a police department which trains dogs as guards. These agencies can requisition dogs that are awaiting destruction so long as five days have elapsed since the dog was impounded. Licensed dogs surrendered to the municipality or an animal shelter shall not be requisitioned without the written consent of the owner obtained at the time of the surrender.

NY - Property - § 366. Dog stealing

NY AGRI & MKTS § 366

This New York statute provides that it is a crime to steal dogs, defined as: removing the collar, identification tag or any other identification by which the owner may be ascertained from any dog, cat or any other domestic animal; seizing or molesting any dog, while it is being held or led by any person or while it is properly muzzled or wearing a collar with an identification tag attached, except where such action is incidental to the enforcement of some law or regulation; or transporting any dog, not lawfully in his possession, for the purpose of killing or selling such dog.

NY - Service Animal - § 11-107. Compensation for harm to a guide, hearing or service dog.

NY GEN OBLIG § 11-107

Under this New York statute, a disabled person whose guide, hearing or service dog is injured due to the negligence of the owner of another dog in handling that other dog may recover damages from the owner or custodian of the non-guide guide dog. These damages include veterinarian fees, replacement or retraining costs for the guide dog, lost wages, or damages for loss of mobility during retraining or replacement of the dog.

NY - Trusts - § 7-8.1 Trusts for pets.

NY EST POW & TRST § 7-8.1

This New York statute provides that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid. Such trust shall terminate when the living animal beneficiary or beneficiaries of such trust are no longer alive. Upon termination, the trustee shall transfer the unexpended trust property as directed in the trust instrument or, if there are no such directions in the trust instrument, the property shall pass to the estate of the grantor. A court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use.

Chart assembled from http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/statestatutes/stusnyset.htm

EXHIBIT A

Index No. 067721 Year 2011

CIVIL COURT:CITY OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------- ELENA ZAKHAROVA for herself and as representative of her dog, Umka,

Plaintiff, -against-

RAISING ROVER LTD., JEFFREY SILVERSTEIN, FRANKIE FORONJY, and JOHN DOEs 1-3, being the Puppy Mill and/or breeder of Umka,

Defendants.         __________________________________

COMPLAINT ___________________________

LAW OFFICES OF SUSAN CHANA LASK Attorney for Plaintiff 244 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2369 New York, New York 10001 (917) 300-1958 ___________________________ Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the undersigned, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the courts of New York, certifies that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, the contentions contained in the annexed document are not frivolous. Dated: February 8, 2012 Signature_______________________ Susan Chana Lask, Esq.