FACTS This is a replevin action requiring the Court to determine ownership/custody of a cat. Plaintiffs moved to Wescott Street in the City of Jamestown in September of 2018. Around that time, the Plaintiffs noticed a white cat frequently wandering onto their property looking for food. Plaintiffs state that the cat was quite thin, and had no identification tags. The Plaintiffs assumed that the cat was a stray, named him “Sylvester”, and began feeding the cat in the entry-way of their home. The Plaintiffs fed Sylvester frequently for several months before bringing him into their home. The Plaintiffs took the cat to the veterinarian on January 14, 2019 where he was given shots, treated for fleas, de-wormed, and micro-chipped. The veterinary report states that Sylvester had not been previously micro-chipped, but had previously been neutered prior to January 14, 2019. Plaintiff states that Plaintiff reported Sylvester to be 4-years-old. After having been an indoor cat since January 14, Sylvester accidentally got out of the house on February 2, 2019. Plaintiff’s asked their neighbors, who lived across the street, if they had seen Sylvester. The neighbor stated that Sylvester belonged to his girlfriend, the Defendant Ashlynn Anderson, and that she had taken the cat back.The Defendant states that the cat in question is named Marshmallow. The Defendant testified that Marshmallow was given to her by a co-worker in 2009. Since 2009, Marshmallow has lived in her home on Westcott Street, where the Defendant has resided for about 25 years. The Defendant had Marshmallow neutered as a kitten, but beside that visit, the Defendant has not taken him to the vet in the ten years that she has owned him. However, the Defendant did take Marshmallow for a vet “checkup” following the commencement of this action and after speaking with an attorney. The Defendant also testified that Marshmallow is and “indoor-outdoor” cat. Therefore, he may enter and exit the Defendant’s home using a cat-door whenever he chooses. The Defendant stated that at least three of the neighbors are all familiar with Marshmallow, and often feed him treats when he wanders onto their properties. Additionally, the Defendant testified that she has a second cat that also operates in this way, living both inside and outside the Defendant’s home to some degree. Based on these habits, the Defendant was not immediately concerned with Marshmallow’s failure to return home in January of 2019. The Defendant admitted that Marshmallow had absconded on previous occasions and was missing for a week or two, but eventually returned to her residence. Defendant states that she looked for Marshmallow around the neighborhood a couple weeks after his disappearance without success. The Defendant stated that she did not inquire with the Plaintiff’s regarding Marshmallow’s whereabouts. Finally, the Defendant’s boyfriend found Marshmallow outside on February 2, 2019, and Defendant repossessed Marshmallow.Plaintiff argues that she is the true owner of the cat based on the lack of identification, overall neglected appearance of the cat, and the effort and money expended to feed and treat the cat for any illness. Defendant argues that she has been the rightful owner of the cat for ten years. Although the cat has lived and “indoor-outdoor” lifestyle, Defendant states that she has fed him and housed him for the duration of her ownership of him. Both parties claim to love the cat, and desire him to be a part of their family. Plaintiff has filed this Replevin Action in order to recover possession of Sylvester (a.k.a. Marshmallow) from her neighbor, the Defendant.DISCUSSIONReplevin is a remedy employed to determine “the right of possession as well as recover specific, identifiable items of personal property”. See Practice Commentary following CPLR §7101; TAP Manutencao e Engenharia Brasil S.A. v. Intern. Aerospace Group, Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d 202 (S.D. NY 2015); Heckl v. Walsh, 122 AD3d 1252, 996 N.Y.S.2d 413 (4th Dep’t 2014); see also 23 NY Jur Conversion, and Action for Recovery of Chattel §89. The term “personal property” includes chattels, and the term “chattel” refers to “things that can be used, handled, or transported, as horses, carriages, furniture, machinery, tools, and numberless objects to be seen about us in everyday life, the value of which is in the possession of the thing itself.” Niles v. Mathusa, 162 NY 546, 57 N.E. 184 (1900); see also 23 NY Jur Conversion, and Action for Recovery of Chattel §89.Under New York Law, irrespective of how strongly people feel about their pets, cats and dogs have been viewed as “personal property — sometimes referred to as “chattel” — just like a car or a table”. Travis v. Murray, 42 Misc 3d 447, 452, 977 N.Y.S.2d 621, 625 (Sup. Ct.); 2013 NY Slip Op 23405, 5; see also Mullaly v. People, 86 NY 365 [1881]; Schrage v. Hatzlacha Cab Corp., 13 AD3d 150, 788 NYS2d 4 [1st Dept 2004]; Rowan v. Sussdorff, 147 App Div 673, 132 NYS 550 [2d Dept 1911]; ATM One, LLC v. Albano, 2001 NY Misc. LEXIS 910, 2001 NY Slip Op 50103[U] [Nassau Dist Ct 2001]). The standard for recovery in a replevin action being “superior possessory right in the chattel” Pivar v. Graduate School of Figurative Art of NY Academy of Art, 290 AD2d 212, 213, 735 NYS2d 522 [1st Dept 2002]. Therefore, it is “the property rights of the litigants, rather than their respective abilities to care for the dog or their emotional ties to it, that are ultimately determinative.” Travis v. Murray, 2013 NY Slip Op 23405, 5, 42 Misc 3d 447, 453, 977 N.Y.S.2d 621, 626 (Sup. Ct.).Nevertheless, there has been a slow evolution in New York case law towards the “dechattelization” of household pets, and away from the “overly reductionist and utilitarian” view. Id. New York Courts, as well as most Courts across the United States, are unwilling to go so far as to adopt a child custody or “best interests” standard. Travis v. Murray, 42 Misc 3d 447, 456; see generally Desanctis v. Pritchard, 2002 PA Super 221, 803 A2d 230, 232 [Pa Super Ct 2002]; Clark v. McGinnis (298 P3d 1137 [Kan Ct App 2013]; Morgan v. Kroupa, 167 Vt. 99, 702 A.2d 630 (1997); Houseman v. Dare, 405 N.J. Super. 538, 966 A.2d 24 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009).The “best interests” standard has been rejected for several reasons. First, it is difficult if not impossible to truly determine what is in a pet’s best interests as there is no proven or practical means of gauging an animal’s happiness or “its feelings about a person or a place other than, perhaps, resorting to the entirely unscientific method of watching its tail wag.” Travis v. Murray, 2013 NY Slip Op 23405,
