Skip Navigation   My NYSBA | | Join | Renew | Web Survey | FAQ | Online Store | Search
New York State Bar Association
Committee on Animals and the Law
Committee At a Glance
Mission Statement
Committee Roster
Animalaw Blog
Animals in the News
Laws & Paws Newsletter
Making A Difference Report
Animal Week Resources
Disaster Preparedness
Endangered Species Day
Animal Law Courses (Offered by Law Schools & Other Entities)
Past Programs
Teen Animal Cruelty Program
Teleseminar - Michael Bean
Teleseminar - Steve Chandler
Teleseminar - Zoo Story
Legal Resources
Animal Law Resources
Animal Protection Laws of New York State
Animal Cruelty
Damages
Dangerous Dogs
Enforcement
Eviction - Harboring Animals
Horse Injuries
Horse Racing
Right to Appeal
Shelters - Reimbursement
NYS Humane Education Law
Representing Shelters
Statutes
Companion Animal Laws
Legislative Information and Reports
Members Only Section
Student Writing Competition
Upcoming Events
Site Map
JOIN / RENEW
LOGIN
SITE MAP
JOBS/CAREERS
 
THE NEW YORK
BAR FOUNDATION

Legal Ease Brochure 

Series

Downloadable Forms

Bridge the Gap Ad  
July 19 and 20 2011

Damages

  • Lynch v. Town of Southhampton, ---F.Supp.2d ---, 2007 WL 1876501 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)

The Plaintiff became a volunteer dog walker for the Town of Southhampton Animal Control Shelter.  She wrote letters to the press, participated in a radio show and eventually filed a lawsuit about the shelter’s euthanasia policies.  After filing on order to show cause in support of an injunction request to stop the euthanasia policy, she was directed to leave the shelter by town code enforcement officers.  In a Section 1983 First Amendment Freedom of Speech claim, a jury verdict in her favor awarded the Plaintiff $251,000 for emotional distress.  The Defendant moved to vacate the jury award or for a remittitur reflecting an appropriate reduction of the amount of the verdict.  Plaintiff also requested attorney fees and costs and expenses.

Defendant argues that the Plaintiff did not testify about treatment by a medical or mental professional so had not shown distress over the euthanization while Plaintiff argued that the removal by the town’s officers caused extreme distress and medication needs.  The Court noted that a good part of the Plaintiff’s life revolved around her work as a volunteer and the need to take antidepressants following her termination. 

The Court looked at its options to order a new trial limited to damages or grant a remittitur if the court finds that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive.  Based on the evidence of emotional distress the court found that emotional distress damages were properly awarded.  Since there did not shock the conscience, the court affirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a remittitur, however, did find that damages in excess of $50,000 based on other cases, would be shocking so ordered a new trial on the issue of damages unless the Plaintiff agreed to a remittitur reducing the emotional distress award to $50,000.  After a long discussion regarding attorney’s fees and what was reasonable, the Court awarded attorney’s fees based on a total of 476.75 hours.