## Facts

- The People charged Martin Walsh with one count of overdriving, torturing, and injuring animals; failure to provide proper sustenance, under New York Agriculture and Markets Law (A.M.L.) § 353 (class A misdemeanor).
- The accusatory instrument relied on a veterinarian’s observations at an animal hospital regarding Walsh’s cat.
- The cat allegedly exhibited multiple serious conditions, including dehydration, emaciation, a swollen and bleeding paw with an untreated tumor, bone loss in the digits from the untreated tumor, a nasal polyp causing breathing difficulty, an ingrown nail grown back into a paw, chronic liver and kidney disease, and advanced periodontal disease.
- The instrument alleged these conditions existed over a prolonged period and were patently observable.
- The prosecution theory was that Walsh’s long-term failure to obtain veterinary treatment constituted neglect or deprivation of “necessary sustenance” causing unjustifiable pain and suffering under A.M.L. § 353.
- Walsh moved pretrial to dismiss for failure to state an offense and facial insufficiency; he also sought alternative relief including a bill of particulars, discovery, suppression or a Huntley hearing, and an adjournment.

## Issues

1. Whether the misdemeanor information contained non-hearsay factual allegations that, if true, established each element of A.M.L. § 353 and the defendant’s commission of it, as required for facial sufficiency under CPL §§ 100.15 and 100.40.
2. Whether A.M.L. § 353 permits prosecution based on an owner’s failure to obtain veterinary treatment for serious, observable conditions, as “necessary sustenance” deprivation or neglect causing unjustifiable pain and suffering.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The court held the information was facially sufficient because the veterinarian’s detailed observations, together with the alleged prolonged failure to obtain treatment, supported a prima facie violation of A.M.L. § 353.
- The court rejected a narrow reading of “necessary sustenance” limited to food and water and held that the statute can reach failure to provide necessary veterinary care when the omission results in unjustifiable pain and suffering.
- The criminal case was permitted to proceed; the ruling did not determine guilt.

## Legal Principles

- A misdemeanor information is facially sufficient when it alleges non-hearsay facts that, if true, establish every element of the offense and the defendant’s commission of it, and provide reasonable cause and notice adequate to prepare a defense (CPL §§ 100.15, 100.40).
- At the pleading stage, the court assesses whether the allegations make out a prima facie case, not whether guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A.M.L. § 353 covers both affirmative acts of cruelty and omissions or neglect that permit unjustifiable pain or suffering.
- “Necessary sustenance” in A.M.L. § 353 may include basic humane care required to prevent unjustifiable suffering, which can include necessary veterinary attention for serious, observable conditions.
- Detailed veterinary allegations describing untreated, prolonged, serious medical conditions can support a charge under A.M.L. § 353 based on neglect or deprivation of necessary care.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the accusatory instrument as facially sufficient and construed A.M.L. § 353 to allow prosecution where an owner’s prolonged failure to obtain necessary veterinary treatment for an obviously suffering animal constitutes neglect or deprivation of necessary sustenance resulting in unjustifiable pain and suffering.


People v. Walsh, 19 Misc. 3d 1105(A) (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2008)