## Facts

- Christopher M. Mitchell and Madeline R. Snider, an unmarried cohabiting couple, jointly acquired a black Labrador retriever named Django during their relationship.
- After the relationship ended, Django remained with Snider and stayed in her exclusive care for nearly two years before trial.
- Mitchell filed a replevin action seeking return of Django and $5,055 in damages for alleged wrongful detention (valuing the dog at $200).
- Snider answered that the parties were joint owners and counterclaimed for a declaration that Django should remain in her sole possession as best for all concerned.
- At a bench trial, both parties testified and submitted documentary evidence.
- The parties stipulated that the governing standard for determining possession was the “best for all concerned” test.

## Issues

1. Whether Django was jointly owned by the parties or solely owned by Mitchell with a superior possessory right.
2. Under the “best for all concerned” standard, which party should have possession of Django following the breakup.

## Decision

- The court found that Mitchell and Snider were joint owners of Django.
- Applying the “best for all concerned” standard, the court awarded sole possession and care of Django to Snider, to the exclusion of Mitchell.
- Judgment was entered for Snider, and Mitchell’s replevin claim and related monetary damages request were denied.

## Legal Principles

- In non-matrimonial disputes over a dog’s return, replevin is an available cause of action to determine the right to possession.
- Although dogs are treated as property for many purposes, companion animals may be treated differently than inanimate personal property when deciding possession.
- In resolving competing claims to possession of a companion animal, courts may apply a “best for all concerned” inquiry rather than relying exclusively on formal title or superior possessory rights.
- Stability and continuity of the animal’s living arrangement, demonstrated welfare while in a party’s care, and the practical consequences of disrupting an established home may be considered in determining possession.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the dog was jointly owned but that it was best for all concerned that he remain in the defendant’s sole possession, and it therefore denied the plaintiff’s replevin and damages claims and entered judgment for the defendant.


Mitchell v. Snider, 51 Misc. 3d 1229(A) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2016)