## Facts

- Courtney Roberts bought an 11-week-old male dachshund puppy from Le Petit Puppy in New York City for $1,200.
- The sellers were Narciso Melendez and Jimmy Claudio d/b/a Le Petit Puppy.
- The parties signed a written sales agreement that included a 14-day health warranty promising a money-back remedy if a licensed veterinarian found the puppy unhealthy, but only if the buyer (a) provided a veterinarian’s written statement describing the condition and (b) allowed the seller to reexamine the animal.
- The agreement also included a one-year replacement warranty for congenital defects.
- The day after purchase, Roberts flew with the puppy to California and took it to her veterinarian.
- The California veterinary records described the puppy as “normal” across many body systems, but noted sneezing, fleas, and one missing testicle.
- The veterinarian administered a DHPP vaccine and directed flea treatment (including Advantage).
- The following day, the puppy became ill, was hospitalized, and tested positive for parvovirus; the record raised concern that the recent vaccine could affect test results.
- The puppy was eventually euthanized.
- Roberts did not notify the sellers about the illness until after the puppy’s death, and she never returned the animal or made it available for the sellers’ reexamination.
- Roberts brought a small-claims action seeking the purchase price plus veterinary bills and travel-related expenses, relying on the contract and New York’s pet-sale statute (General Business Law § 753).

## Issues

1. Whether Roberts could recover under the contract’s 14-day health warranty or one-year congenital-defect warranty when she did not provide timely notice, a veterinary certification to the seller, or an opportunity for seller reexamination.
2. Whether Roberts proved the puppy was “unfit for purchase” due to illness existing at the time of sale, or had a covered congenital defect, within the meaning of General Business Law § 753.
3. Whether Roberts could obtain reimbursement for the purchase price and claimed veterinary and travel expenses without meeting the contract and statutory conditions tied to refund or replacement remedies.

## Decision

- Judgment for defendants; the court denied Roberts any recovery.
- The court found Roberts did not satisfy the contract’s express conditions for a refund or replacement, including furnishing a veterinary statement to the seller and making the puppy available for reexamination.
- The court also concluded Roberts failed to prove, on this record, that the puppy’s alleged parvovirus illness existed at the time of sale, especially given the largely normal exam shortly after purchase and uncertainty surrounding the positive test following vaccination.
- To the extent Roberts relied on General Business Law § 753, the court determined she did not meet the statute’s documentation and notice/return requirements for statutory remedies.

## Legal Principles

- A buyer seeking relief under an express pet-sale warranty can be barred from recovery by failure to satisfy stated preconditions such as timely notice, veterinarian documentation, and seller reexamination.
- Under New York General Business Law § 753, the buyer must present competent veterinary proof that the animal was unfit for purchase because of illness (or had a congenital defect) that existed at the time of sale, and must comply with the statute’s procedural requirements tied to the remedy sought.
- When medical proof does not clearly link the animal’s condition to the date of sale, the buyer may fail to carry the burden of showing covered illness or defect at purchase.
- Refund or replacement remedies in pet-sale disputes are limited by the governing contract and statute; claimed add-on expenses may not be recoverable where the buyer does not meet the required steps for relief.

## Conclusion

The Civil Court denied Roberts’s small-claims demand because she did not follow the contract and General Business Law § 753 requirements for veterinary certification, timely notice, and seller reexamination/return, and she did not prove that the puppy’s fatal condition was a covered illness present at the time of sale.


Roberts v. Melendez, 6 Misc. 3d 1015, 2005 WL 192353 (2005)