Travis v. Murray

977 N.Y.S.2d 621 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P and D were married on October 12, 2012. Before their marriage, they resided in the same Upper Manhattan apartment that they continued to occupy after the marriage. On February 6, 2011, while the parties were living together but before they married, P bought Joey from a pet store. At the time of his purchase, Joey was a 10-week-old puppy. On June 11, 2013, D moved out of the marital apartment while P was away from New York on a business trip. D took some furniture and personal possessions with her. She also took Joey. D first refused to tell P where Joey was but then later claimed that she had lost him while walking in Central Park. P filed for divorce on July 11, 2013. P brought this motion requesting that D be directed to immediately account for Joey's whereabouts since the date he was removed from the marital apartment, that he be returned to P's 'care and custody,' and that she be granted an 'order of sole residential custody of her dog.' D revealed that Joey was never lost in Central Park, but instead was living with her mother in Freeport, Maine. P claims that Joey is her property because she bought him with her own funds prior to the marriage. She alleges that D stole the dog when she removed him from the marital apartment and subsequently relocated him to Maine. P contends that it is in Joey's 'best interests' that he is returned to her 'sole care and custody.' D states that Joey was a gift to her from P as a consolation for her having to give away her cat at P's insistence. D contends that she shared financial responsibility for the dog, that she 'attended to all of Joey's emotional, practical, and logistical needs,' and that 'Joey's bed was next to [her] side of the marital bed.' D contends that it is in Joey's 'best interests' to be with her mother in Maine, where D can see him regularly and where he is 'healthy, safe and happy.' P maintains that Joey is her property by virtue of having bought him and D maintains that the dog is hers as a result of P having gifted him to her. The second approach is the best interests approach firmly rooted in child custody analyses.