## Facts

- Michael Garcia lived with Emelie Martinez, her three children, and another resident in a New York apartment.
- The household kept two dogs, a cat, and three named goldfish belonging to the children.
- At about 3:00 a.m., Garcia held the fish tank over Martinez, threw it into a television, and damaged other property while making an intimidating remark.
- When the children emerged crying during cleanup, Garcia addressed one child and then stomped on that child’s goldfish, killing it.
- Garcia was charged with multiple offenses, including felony aggravated cruelty to animals under New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a(1), based on killing the goldfish.

## Issues

1. Whether a pet goldfish kept in a household qualifies as a “companion animal” under Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a(1).
2. Whether stomping a child’s pet goldfish to death in front of the children constitutes “aggravated cruelty,” including where death may have been rapid.
3. Whether § 353-a(1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied, particularly as to the term “companion animal.”

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the judgment of conviction, including the felony conviction for aggravated cruelty to animals.
- The court held that a household pet goldfish falls within the statute’s definition of “companion animal.”
- The court held that the intentional, unjustified killing of the child’s pet goldfish by stomping constituted aggravated cruelty under § 353-a(1).
- The court rejected the claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague as applied.

## Legal Principles

- “Companion animal” under § 353-a(1) is construed broadly to include animals commonly kept in or near the household as pets or for companionship, not limited to species capable of reciprocal affection.
- Aggravated cruelty may be established by an intentional, unjustified killing carried out in a deliberately violent manner; the People need not prove prolonged suffering where the method and context of the act demonstrate aggravated cruelty.
- A statute is not void for vagueness as applied if it gives ordinary persons fair notice and supplies standards limiting arbitrary enforcement; conduct that falls within the statute’s clear core cannot support a vagueness defense.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a felony aggravated-cruelty conviction for stomping a child’s pet goldfish, ruling that a household goldfish is a “companion animal,” that the intentional violent killing satisfied aggravated cruelty even if death was quick, and that the statute provided sufficient notice and enforceable standards.


People v. Garcia, 29 A.D.3d 255, 812 N.Y.S.2d 66 (1st Dep’t 2006)