In the mail today, we received a copy of a letter from the lawyer of the plaintiff-appellant in the case to the clerk of the court which states:
"This office represents the Plaintiff-Appellant in the above captioned Rensselaer County Supreme Court action, which is currently pending appeal. Please be advised that my clients are withdrawing their appeal in this matter."
The way I understand it, that means Judge Zwack's original decision in favour of my daughter and her boyfriend stands. The original decision read thus (this is just the last bit, the nitty-gritty, as it were):
"...Here, mindful of the public policy purposes of A&M Section 347(2), which affords companion animals the benefits of adoption and placement in homes as an alternative to euthanization when found lost or abandoned, the Court declines to allow plaintiffs to have return of the cat and thereby set aside the defendants' adoption of the cat from the Society.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion for summary judgement is denied, and it is further
ORDERED, that defendants are granted reverse summary judgement and the complaint is dismissed.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court..."Of course, my favourite part of the judge's decision remains the section that touches on the idea of being responsible for the consequences of your own actions or inactions:
"Plaintiffs own actions, or inactions as the case may be, directly caused their loss - the cat had no collar or microchip for identification - and the cat was allowed to roam the neighborhood freely. While plaintiffs never imagined this scenario, and the Court surely appreciates that it is indeed heartbreaking event, it was an inevitable consequence of their inattention to their cat."