New York woman can pursue legal claims after co-op staff allegedly took her pets. (AI image) A New York woman who accused employees of her housing cooperative of entering her apartment without permission and taking away her dog and cat has won a legal battle to continue pursuing two of her claims. Nearly three years after the incident, a New York appeals court ruled on Wednesday, that Lisa Cinque could proceed with her claims of trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc, and its employees.Cinque alleged that the employees entered her apartment while she was away, removed her pets and later gave her misleading information about where her dog had been taken. She said she repeatedly tried to locate the animal but was unsuccessful. According to Justia, documents submitted during the case indicated that the dog had spent nearly two months at a shelter before being euthanised.On May 31, when Cinque, a shareholder in the cooperative housing corporation and a resident of one of its apartments, was away from home, two employees, Gina Catania and Justin Conklin, allegedly forced their way into the apartment without her consent. According to her, they searched through her belongings, took photographs, removed personal property, including her dog and cat, and left the apartment door open. The employees then gave her cat to a neighbour. Finding her dog, however, became a prolonged struggle. Cinque claimed that the defendants initially refused to tell her where the animal had been taken. When they eventually provided information, she said it led her to facilities that could not locate her pet. Dog gets euthanised According to the court judgment, the defendants first told Cinque that her dog had been taken to "Animal Care and Control". She contacted several facilities but could not find it.Her lawyer subsequently demanded information about the animal's location. In response, the defendants said the dog had been taken to the Humane Society of New York. Cinque contacted that organisation as well, but it denied receiving her dog.She continued seeking answers, but the complaint alleged that the defendants refused to provide further information. Cinque accused them of deliberately making false statements that prevented her from discovering where her pet was being kept.The court records also revealed what the defendants submitted in their attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed. They produced veterinary records covering May to July 2023, which they said concerned Cinque's dog.Those records indicated that a dog had arrived at a shelter on May 31, 2023, and had been described to shelter employees as an abandoned animal without an owner. After remaining there for almost two months, the dog was euthanised on July 24, 2023. 'Apartment entry was emergency' Cinque filed her lawsuit in September 2023, seeking damages for trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress and prima facie tort.The defendants disputed the basis of her claims and asked the court to dismiss the complaint before filing an answer.They argued that a foul odour coming from Cinque's apartment had created an emergency that justified their entry. To support their position, they submitted the apartment's proprietary lease, the cooperative's house rules and what they described as body-camera footage of the incident.The lease and house rules allowed employees to enter an apartment in an emergency. The defendants maintained that the smell coming from Cinque's home met that condition.However, Cinque argued that the material submitted by the defendants did not conclusively disprove her allegations.On February 25, 2025, a court in Queens County refused to dismiss any of her claims. The defendants then appealed that decision, bringing the dispute before the Appellate Division, Second Department. Appeals court allows two claims to continue In its November 4 ruling, the appeals court examined whether Cinque's allegations were sufficient for the lawsuit to proceed.On the trespass claim, the judges found that Cinque had alleged an unauthorised and forceful entry into her apartment. They also concluded that the defendants' evidence did not conclusively establish that the entry was legally justified. The court therefore allowed the trespass claim to continue.The judges reached a similar conclusion regarding the emotional distress claim. They considered Cinque's allegations that her pets had been removed, that information about her dog had repeatedly been withheld or misrepresented, and that the animal had eventually been euthanised after being taken to a shelter.The court found that these allegations were sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress at this stage of the proceedings.However, the judges dismissed Cinque's third claim, known as prima facie tort. They found that her complaint did not adequately establish the required allegations concerning the defendants' motivation or identify specific financial losses.The appeals court consequently modified the lower court's order, dismissing only the prima facie tort claim while allowing the other two claims to proceed. It also awarded costs to Cinque.