Owners of a Poughkeepsie pet store have agreed to reimburse buyers who received sick puppies and incomplete medical records.
The Pet Zone at the Poughkeepsie Galleria Mall and three other stores agreed on Jan. 8 to set up a $200,000 restitution fund and pay a $2,500 civil penalty to settle claims alleged four years ago by the New York State Attorney General.
The settlement fell short of the state’s original demands.
In 2017, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a cease and desist letter to The Pet Zone, based on consumer complaints about alleged sales of unfit dogs, and issued several subpoenas for records.
In 2018, Acting Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood petitioned Jefferson County Supreme Court in Watertown, where The Pet Zone has a store, to shut down the stores and stop owners Theodore and Sheila Bell of Port Charlotte, Florida from ever selling live animals in New York. The state also wanted the stores to reimburse customers who bought sick puppies and to pay fines of $1,000 to $5,000 for each violation.
The state claimed that Pet Zone stores in Albany, Poughkeepsie, Queensbury and Watertown violated the Pet Lemon Law and engaged in deceptive business practices.
The state alleged that many buyers unwittingly rented their pets when they financed their purchases. Instead of loans, buyers were agreeing to closed-end leases that included an option to buy for an additional fee at the end of the 12 to 36-month term. If they didn’t buy, according to the state, the dog had to be returned to the finance company.
The Pet Zone’s attorney, Javid Afzali, called the charges frivolous in 2018 and attributed complaints to disgruntled employees who had been fired.
“There has never been a case of a dog sold without proper veterinary care,” he told the Westchester County Business Journal.
In 2018, a Jefferson County judge issued a temporary restraining order “to protect the public and the animals.” He barred The Pet Zone from buying live animals for re-sale unless it complied with state laws and required the company to regularly report on the status of the animals and certify that they had been examined by a veterinarian.
The Pet Zone says it has turned over more than 8,500 pages of documents to the state, and this past May an attorney for the company said in a letter to the court that “no significant progress has been made since September 2019.” He argued that the state cannot leave the case open indefinitely so as to closely monitor operations.
The Jan. 9 consent order requires the Pet Zone to set up a restitution fund to reimburse customers who bought dogs or cats after Jan. 1, 2014 that were unfit due to illness or disease or congenital malformation. The company has to fund up to $200,000 for a year, and after a year it can keep any remaining funds.
The stores must inform every buyer about the Pet Lemon Law, post a notice about the law near cages where animals are offered for sale, and train employees on the law.
Every pet has to be examined by a veterinarian before sale and receive all required vaccinations. Buyers must be given the animal’s examination, treatment and medication records.
Meanwhile, this past August The Pet Zone sued six former employees of the Poughkeepsie store, claiming they had violated a confidentiality agreement by publishing false and defamatory information on public websites and social media platforms.
The employees sought to destroy The Pet Zone’s reputation, the complaint claims, by accusing the company of “something horrendous in the eyes of animal lovers.”
In answering the charges, former employees cited past and current investigations of the pet stores.
The lawsuit, a defendant argued in September, is an attempt to shift blame for illegal practices onto “purportedly disgruntled former employees.”
On Jan. 3, Dutchess Supreme Court Justice Thomas R. Davis ruled mostly in favor of the defendants. He dismissed charges of tortious interference with a contract, breach of duty of loyalty, and defamation that were filed against Michael Garan of Lagrangeville. He declined to dismiss a breach of contract charge, but made no determination on the validity of the contract.
