The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim order for recovery and possession of two dogs following the breakdown of his relationship with the defendant.
The defendant conceded the plaintiff owned one dog but claimed the other was a gift to her.
The court rejected the defendant's jurisdictional argument that the matter belonged in Family Court.
Applying the test for interim recovery of personal property, the court found the plaintiff did not demonstrate substantial grounds for the recovery of the disputed dog due to conflicting evidence, including a veterinary bill paid by the defendant.
The court granted the interim order for the conceded dog but dismissed it for the disputed dog.
