In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for veterinary malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal. The court reaffirmed that it is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent destruction of a dog.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for veterinary malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered August 11, 1994, as granted the branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, so much of the complaint as sought to recover damages for emotional distress.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent destruction of a dog (see, Gluckman v. American Airlines, 844 F.Supp. 151; Fowler v. Town of Ticonderoga, 131 A.D.2d 919, 921, 516 N.Y.S.2d 368; Young v. Delta Air Lines, 78 A.D.2d 616, 432 N.Y.S.2d 390; Zager v. Dimilia, 138 Misc.2d 448, 524 N.Y.S.2d 968; Stettner v. Graubard, 82 Misc.2d 132, 368 N.Y.S.2d 683; Smith v. Palace Transp. Co., 142 Misc. 93, 253 N.Y.S. 87).