304 A.D.2d 74
FACTS: Specifically, the dog owner's amended complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the complained-of standard (1) unlawfully discriminated against the dog owner by effectively precluding him from entering his dog in breed competitions, (2) was arbitrary and capricious, (3) violated N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 353, and (4) was null and void as in derogation of law. He further sought an injunction prohibiting defendants from applying, enforcing, or utilizing the standard. The appellate court found that the claim was made that the associations adopted a standard that promoted, among the owners of Brittany Spaniels raised for competition, a practice that allegedly amounted to the unjustifiable, and therefore illegal, mutilation of the dogs. The appellate court agreed with the associations' contention that the dog owner lacked the standing to obtain any of the civil remedies he sought for the alleged violation of § 353. Because the owner had no individual right to seek civil enforcement of § 353, those portions of his complaint that sought a declaration that the associations' tail standard violated the statute were null and void.
CONCLUSION: The judgment was affirmed.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?