Glen Oaks Village Pet Lawsuit, Appeals Court Lets Trespass and Emotional Distress Claims Proceed After Dog and Cat Were Taken

A New York appeals court has ruled that Lisa Cinque, a Glen Oaks Village co-op shareholder in Queens, can continue her lawsuit against the cooperative and two of its employees. She alleges they entered her apartment without permission in 2023, removed her dog and cat, and then failed to give her accurate information about where the dog was, until it was euthanized at a shelter.

On November 4, 2026, the Appellate Division, Second Department, decided Cinque v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 06411. It allowed the trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims to proceed and dismissed the prima facie tort claim. The court modified the lower-court order and awarded costs to Cinque.

This is not a verdict. The court has not found the defendants liable, has not awarded damages, and has not decided whether the entry was lawful. It ruled only that two claims were sufficient to continue at the earliest stage of the case.

This article explains what happened, what the court decided, which New York laws apply, what pet owners and co-op residents can learn, and what comes next.

Glen Oaks Village Pet Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case	Cinque v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc., et al.
Plaintiff	Lisa Cinque, shareholder and resident
Defendants	Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.; employees Gina Catania and Justin Conklin
Court	New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
Decision	November 4, 2026, 2026 NY Slip Op 06411
Appellate docket	2025-04258
Original index number	719079/23 (Supreme Court, Queens County)
Incident date	May 31, 2023
Lawsuit filed	September 2023
Dog’s reported euthanasia	July 24, 2023
Claims allowed to proceed	Trespass; intentional infliction of emotional distress
Claim dismissed	Prima facie tort
Plaintiff’s attorney	Steven G. Legum
Defendants’ appellate counsel	Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP
Damages awarded	None
Settlement	None identified
Status	Pending in Queens Supreme Court on the two surviving claims

Timeline of the Case

Date	Event
May 31, 2023	Employees allegedly enter Cinque’s apartment and remove her dog and cat
July 24, 2023	Shelter records submitted by defendants show a related dog was euthanized
September 2023	Cinque files her lawsuit
February 25, 2025	Queens Supreme Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss
2025	Defendants appeal (docket 2025-04258)
November 4, 2026	Appellate Division allows two claims to proceed, dismisses prima facie tort

What Happened to Lisa Cinque’s Dog and Cat?

According to the complaint as described in the appellate decision, Cinque was away from home on the morning of May 31, 2023, when two Glen Oaks employees, Gina Catania and Justin Conklin, allegedly forced their way into her apartment.

The Alleged Entry

Cinque alleges the employees searched through her belongings, took photographs, removed some personal property and left the door open. They also removed her dog and cat.

What Happened to the Cat?

Cinque alleges the employees gave her cat to a neighbor. The opinion does not establish whether the cat was returned.

What Happened to the Dog?

Cinque alleges she was repeatedly given inaccurate or no information about the dog:

• Employees at first refused to say where it was, then said it had gone to “Animal Care and Control,” where she could not find it.
• After her attorney demanded answers, the defendants said it was at the Humane Society of New York, which denied receiving it.
• She says she never received accurate information about where the dog was.

Records submitted by the defendants indicate a dog was brought to a shelter on May 31, 2023, described to shelter staff as abandoned with no owner, and euthanized on July 24, 2023, after nearly two months.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not decide who ordered the euthanasia, whether the shelter dog was definitively Cinque’s, or whether each allegation is true. At this stage the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true.

Why Did Glen Oaks Employees Say They Entered?

The defendants argued that a foul odor from the apartment created an emergency justifying entry without permission. To support that, they submitted:

• Cinque’s proprietary lease.
• The Glen Oaks Village House Rules.
• What they described as body-camera footage of the entry.
• Veterinary and shelter records.

The lease and house rules permit entry in an emergency, according to the opinion. But the court did not decide that an odor existed or that it qualified as an emergency. It held only that the defendants’ documents did not conclusively establish that the entry was justified.

What Do Glen Oaks’ House Rules Say?

Glen Oaks Village is a self-managed cooperative in northeastern Queens, with about 2,904 garden-style apartments in 134 buildings on roughly 110 acres, according to the cooperative’s website.

Emergency Access

The cooperative’s publicly posted 2024-2026 House Rules allow management or maintenance employees, accompanied by a security officer, to enter an apartment in an emergency. Those rules postdate the May 31, 2023 incident, so they should not be treated as the exact version in force on that date.

Pet Rules

The posted rules also set pet requirements, including leashes in common areas, dog licenses and rabies tags, cleaning up after pets, and no abandonment of animals, and they provide a process for addressing documented dog violations, including legal action. Having a process for pet violations is different from a right to remove a shareholder’s animals or to withhold information about them, and the house rules do not establish that employees could do so.

What Did the Appeals Court Decide on November 4, 2026?

The Second Department reviewed a Queens Supreme Court order that had refused to dismiss any of Cinque’s three claims. The appeals court modified that order, dismissing the prima facie tort claim and leaving trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress intact.

Why the Procedural Posture Matters

The defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1) (a defense founded on documentary evidence) and CPLR 3211(a)(7) (failure to state a cause of action).

• Under Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (1994), courts accept the complaint’s facts as true and give the plaintiff every favorable inference.
• Under Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 98 NY2d 314 (2002), documentary evidence must “utterly refute” the allegations and conclusively establish a defense.

The defendants’ documents did not meet that standard on the trespass claim.

Why Did the Trespass Claim Survive?

Under New York law, trespass is an intentional entry onto another’s property without permission or justification. The court relied on Second Department decisions including Wlody v. Birch Family Services, Inc., 210 AD3d 1036, Leavitt Enterprises, Inc. v. Two Fulton Square, LLC, 181 AD3d 662, and Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill, 63 AD3d 699.

Does a Co-op Shareholder Have Possessory Rights?

Yes. A shareholder-tenant holds a proprietary lease to the apartment, and unauthorized entry can support a trespass claim, but the cooperative’s lease may authorize some entries. Whether this entry was authorized is the unresolved question.

Was Anyone Found Guilty of Trespass?

No. This is a civil tort claim, not a criminal case. The court decided only that the claim could continue.

Can the Cooperative Be Responsible for Employees’ Acts?

Generally, an employer can be liable for employees’ acts within the scope of their employment under Riviello v. Waldron, 47 NY2d 297 (1979). Whether these acts fell within that scope will be part of the litigation.

Why Did the Emotional Distress Claim Survive?

Under Chanko v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc., 27 NY3d 46 (2016), a plaintiff must generally show:

1. Extreme and outrageous conduct.
2. Intent to cause, or reckless disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress.
3. A causal connection between the conduct and the injury.
4. Severe emotional distress.

New York sets this bar very high. The court looked at the alleged conduct as a whole: forced entry, removal of both pets, giving the cat to a neighbor, withholding information about the dog, giving allegedly false or misleading shelter information, describing the dog as abandoned, and preventing Cinque from finding the dog before it was euthanized. It held those allegations were sufficient to plead the claim.

What the Court Did Not Decide

It did not decide that the defendants intended to cause distress or that Cinque has proven severe distress. Those matters are for later proceedings.

Can a Pet Owner in New York Recover Emotional Distress Damages?

This case does not change New York’s general rule. New York law treats companion animals as personal property, and courts have traditionally refused emotional-distress or loss-of-companionship damages when a pet is negligently killed or lost. See, for example, Corso v. Crawford Dog & Cat Hospital, Inc., 97 Misc 2d 530 (Civ Ct 1979), and the more recent discussion in DeBlase v. Hill, 2025 NY Slip Op 25156.

Why Cinque’s Claim Is Different

Her claim is not based on the dog’s death alone. It rests on the alleged forced entry and the alleged conduct that kept her from finding her dog. The Second Department did not announce a new rule that every pet owner can recover emotional-distress damages. It found this particular complaint sufficient to proceed.

What Damages Might Be Available?

If Cinque ultimately prevails, damages could include compensatory damages for proven harm. Trespass can support nominal damages even without proof of loss, and punitive damages are available in New York for conduct showing a high degree of moral culpability under Walker v. Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401 (1961). The court has set no amount.

Why Was the Prima Facie Tort Claim Dismissed?

Prima facie tort covers intentional harm that fits no other tort. Under Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 (1985), a plaintiff must show intentional infliction of harm, special damages, no excuse or justification, and an otherwise lawful act or acts.

What Was Missing

The complaint did not adequately allege that the defendants acted from disinterested malevolence, meaning harm to the plaintiff was their sole motive, and it did not plead special damages (specific, quantified economic loss) with sufficient particularity. See Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 (1992).

Did Cinque Lose the Whole Case?

No. Only this claim was dismissed.

Business Judgment Rule and Co-op Disputes

Co-op boards get deference when they make decisions within their authority and in good faith under Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 NY2d 530 (1990). That deference protects board policy decisions. It does not necessarily shield employees’ alleged tortious acts, such as an unauthorized entry. The Second Department allowed these tort claims to proceed.

Related article: Josephine Catalano Property Lawsuit, New York Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Canceling 2003 Deed to Son

Could Animal Abandonment or Cruelty Laws Apply?

Several New York laws govern animals, but the court did not apply them to the defendants and no criminal charges were identified in the reporting reviewed.

Agriculture and Markets Law § 355: Abandonment

It is a misdemeanor for a person who owns or has custody of an animal to abandon it. The shelter records described the dog as abandoned, but the court made no finding that anyone violated § 355.

Agriculture and Markets Law § 353: Cruelty

Section 353 prohibits unjustifiably injuring or killing an animal and failing to provide necessary sustenance. The decision made no finding that anyone violated it. Aggravated cruelty is covered by § 353-a.

Agriculture and Markets Law § 356: Impounded Animals

Section 356 requires proper food and drink for impounded animals. No finding was made that the shelter violated it.

These statutes provide context only. They are not claims Cinque won.

Statutes of Limitations: Deadlines to Sue

New York deadlines are short. Trespass and injury to property generally must be sued on within three years (CPLR 214(4)). Courts have applied a one-year period to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in some contexts (CPLR 215(3)), and the correct period can depend on the facts. Anyone in a similar situation should consult an attorney promptly.

What This Means for Co-op Residents

An emergency-entry clause is not automatically a complete defense to every claim arising from an entry. Questions that can matter include:

• Whether a real emergency existed.
• Whether entry was necessary and the procedure followed.
• Whether the entry stayed within what the emergency required.
• Whether any property or animals were removed lawfully.
• Whether the resident was given accurate information afterward.

The court did not invalidate Glen Oaks’ emergency-entry rules.

What to Do If a Co-op Enters Your Apartment

Preserve evidence:

• Your proprietary lease and house rules.
• Written notices, emails and messages from management.
• Photos, security-camera and body-camera footage requests.
• Pet license, microchip and veterinary records.
• Names of witnesses and written accounts.

Send written requests asking management to identify who entered, why, and what was removed. Consult a New York attorney experienced in cooperative and tenant law.

What to Do If Your Pet Is Taken

• Contact the Animal Care Centers of NYC, local shelters and rescue groups right away, with photos and microchip information.
• Ask in writing where the animal was taken and who authorized it.
• Check lost-pet databases and microchip registries.
• Act quickly, because shelters can have short holding periods.

What Happens Next in the Case?

The case continues in Supreme Court, Queens County, on the trespass and emotional distress claims. Issues likely to be examined in discovery include:

• The alleged odor: what caused it, who noticed it and why immediate entry was thought necessary.
• The entry: what the body-camera footage and other evidence show.
• The removal: who took the animals, to where, and on what authority.
• The shelter records: whether they relate to Cinque’s dog and who described it as abandoned.
• Communications: what employees knew about the dog’s location and what they told Cinque.
• Distress: whether Cinque can prove severity and causation.

The defendants may raise further motions, and the parties could settle. No settlement was identified as of November 7, 2026, and there is no claim form or fund.

Related AllAboutLawyer Coverage

• Peanut The Squirrel’s $10 Million Lawsuit Against NY State
• Petco WholeHearted Class Action, Did Your Dog Eat Grain-Free Food Linked to Heart Disease?
• Taste Of The Wild Heart Disease Lawsuit, Were You Affected?

Those cases involve different legal theories and parties and do not establish liability in Cinque’s case.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Glen Oaks Village Pet Lawsuit

What is the Glen Oaks Village pet lawsuit about?

Lisa Cinque alleges Glen Oaks employees entered her apartment without permission, removed her dog and cat, and misled her about the dog, which was later euthanized at a shelter.

Who filed the lawsuit?

Lisa Cinque, a shareholder and resident of the Queens cooperative, filed in September 2023.

Who are the individual defendants?

Employees Gina Catania and Justin Conklin, along with Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc.

When did the appeals court rule?

November 4, 2026.

Did Lisa Cinque win?

She won an important procedural appeal. Her trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims continue, but her prima facie tort claim was dismissed and no liability or damages have been decided.

Why did employees say they entered her apartment?

They argued a foul odor created an emergency justifying entry under the lease and house rules.

Did the court say the entry was illegal?

No. It held that the defendants’ evidence did not conclusively establish the entry was justified. The facts remain disputed.

What happened to Cinque’s dog?

Records submitted by the defendants indicate a dog was brought to a shelter on May 31, 2023, described as abandoned, and euthanized on July 24, 2023.

What happened to her cat?

Cinque alleges it was given to a neighbor. The decision does not establish its eventual whereabouts.

How much money is Cinque seeking?

The opinion does not state a damages amount, and no money has been awarded.

Can she recover emotional distress damages?

Possibly, if she proves the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress. New York generally does not award such damages for the loss of a pet alone.

Is this a class action?

No. It is an individual lawsuit. Other Glen Oaks residents are not part of a class and are not entitled to compensation through this case.

Can a co-op enter an apartment in an emergency?

A lease or house rules may authorize emergency entry. Whether a particular entry was justified depends on the lease, the rules and the facts.

Has Glen Oaks settled?

No settlement was identified as of November 7, 2026.

What is the case number?

Appellate docket 2025-04258; original index number 719079/23.

Could the employees face criminal charges?

No charges were identified in the reporting reviewed. The court addressed only civil claims.

Bottom Line

Lisa Cinque alleges employees entered her home, removed her pets and then withheld or misstated information while her dog sat in a shelter for nearly two months before being euthanized. The Second Department held on November 4, 2026, that her trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims may proceed, and dismissed her prima facie tort claim.

The court has not found that the entry was unlawful, found anyone liable or awarded damages. The case now returns to Queens County, where evidence about the entry, the removal of the animals, the shelter records and the communications that followed will be tested. For co-op residents and pet owners, the ruling shows that an emergency-entry clause does not automatically end every dispute over what happens inside an apartment or to an owner’s animals.

Sources and Legal References

Court Decision and Records

• Cinque v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 06411 (2d Dept Nov. 4, 2026), docket 2025-04258
• New York Appellate Division, Second Department, November 4, 2026 decision list
• Second Department calendar listing for docket 2025-04258

Glen Oaks Village Documents

• Glen Oaks Village official cooperative website
• Glen Oaks Village House Rules, 2024-2026

New York Procedure and Tort Law

• CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (a)(7); CPLR 214(4); CPLR 215(3)
• Leon v. Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 (1994)
• Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314 (2002)
• Chanko v. American Broadcasting Companies Inc., 27 NY3d 46 (2016)
• Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135 (1985)
• Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 (1992)
• Riviello v. Waldron, 47 NY2d 297 (1979)
• Walker v. Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401 (1961)
• Matter of Levandusky v. One Fifth Avenue Apartment Corp., 75 NY2d 530 (1990)
• Wlody v. Birch Family Services, Inc., 210 AD3d 1036; Leavitt Enterprises, Inc. v. Two Fulton Square, LLC, 181 AD3d 662; Meadow Lane Equities Corp. v. Hill, 63 AD3d 699

Companion-Animal Law

• Corso v. Crawford Dog & Cat Hospital, Inc., 97 Misc 2d 530 (Civ Ct 1979)
• DeBlase v. Hill, 2025 NY Slip Op 25156
• New York Agriculture and Markets Law §§ 353, 353-a, 355 and 356

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, using the November 4, 2026 appellate decision, publicly available Glen Oaks Village materials, New York statutes and court decisions.

AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal information website, not a law firm. This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The allegations have not been proven at trial, and the surviving claims remain unresolved.