NY's High Court Declines to Take Up Appeal on Habeas Denial for 2 Chimps
The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal in two cases over chimpanzees being held in cages by owners upstate, which leaves the lower appellate court's ruling in place. But Judge Fahey took the opportunity to criticize the First Department's reasoning in finding that a chimp cannot be defined as a person and thus is not entitled to habeas relief.
May 08, 2018 at 05:36 PM
2 minute read
Photo Credit: Bigstock.
The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal a decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, which had denied a petition for habeas relief for two chimpanzees being held in cages by owners upstate.
Judges Leslie Stein and Paul Feinman did not take part in the unanimous ruling.
The court's refusal to hear the case leaves the lower appellate court's ruling in place. But Court of Appeals Judge Eugene Fahey, in a concurrence, criticized the First Department's reasoning in finding that a chimp cannot be defined as a person and thus is not entitled to habeas relief.
The Appellate Division, First Department, found that chimpanzees Tommy and Kiko are not entitled to relief to be moved to a primate sanctuary in South Florida.
Fahey wrote that he wanted to underscore that the court did not rule on the merits of the case brought by the Nonhuman Rights Project. He said that the courts must eventually tackle the question of whether or not a nonhuman animal is entitled to habeas or if they should be considered property or, essentially, a “thing.”
“The inadequacy of the law as a vehicle to address some of our most difficult ethical dilemmas is on display in this matter,” Fahey wrote. He said the First Department's ruling is based on “nothing more” than the fact that chimps aren't members of the human race, and that humans should not “lower the status of other highly intelligent species.”
In its ruling last year, the First Department found that chimpanzees' cognitive abilities do not translate to abilities to bear legal duties or be held accountable for their actions.
That ruling affirmed two orders by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe to deny habeas for the chimps.
Prior to that ruling, the Third and Fourth departments of the Appellate Division denied habeas petitions for Tommy and Kiko, and, in 2015, the Court of Appeals declined to hear appeals from those rulings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
2 minute readMayor's Advisory Committee To Hold Hearing on Fitness of Judicial Candidates
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250