(Google Maps)
Advertisement
Video obtained by the Post shows the four-year-old rescue dog, Sam, lunging at and biting the victim, Joe Venafro, in the stomach. After refusing an ambulance, Venafro received treatment for his wound which included antibiotics, bandaging and vaccines at a nearby Urgent Care.
“The animal jumped up and lunged at my belly button,” Venafro, a TV producer and Columbia graduate, told the Post. “He bit right into a scar where, a few years ago, I had surgery for my Crohn’s disease.”
Venafro reported the incident to the doorman and called the police immediately after the attack. A police report was eventually filed.
Based on several accounts from other tenants and building employees, not to mention more video obtained by the NY Post, the dog has a history of similar behavior. Another video shows the dog escaping his owner’s grasp on the leash to charge at and attempt to bite a bystander waiting for the M79 bus. The dog was wearing a muzzle at the time, which appears to have prevented any real harm.
An anonymous tenant of the sixteen-story rental building, 175 West 79th Street (which has an alternate address of 401 Amsterdam Avenue), reportedly slipped flyers with a warning about the dog’s behavior under residents’ doors, recommending that tenants avoid being in the elevator with the dog.
The dog’s owners, Alan Katz and Inna Fayenson, did not seem too concerned about the incident.
Advertisement
“He needed a Band-aid and he needed antibiotics,” Katz told the NY Post. “If it were [a big deal], he would have gotten admitted. No sutures were necessary. They cleaned the wound and sent him home.”
Fayenson claimed that the stress Sam is meant to help her cope with has been exacerbated by the incident.
Venfaro’s attorney, Jeffrey K. Levine, told the Post a lawsuit was the likely next step. Levine is known for representing Michael Cohen, former President Trump’s former lawyer.
This is exactly why “emotional support dogs” are NOT covered under the ADA, and can legally be refused admittance to restaurants, etc.
TRUE service animals go through extensive training (some are literally brought up being trained as puppies), which includes being trained NEVER to attack (or even bark at) a human being. In fact, virtually ALL aggression is trained out of the animal. And the two main groups that do the training of TRUE service animals will not release or assign a service animal unless that is the case.
“Emotional support” animals go through little or no training at all, which is why you get incidents like this. And the owners’ callous dismissiveness is outrageous. Sadly, if you believe NYers, EVERY dog in NYC is a “service” dog or “emotional support” dog. And they do this just so they can take their dogs wherever they want – even when they are NOT service animals of any type. It is unbelievably selfish.
I spent some time raising money for one of the groups that trains service dogs. And one way I learned when people are lying is that there are certain breeds that are NEVER trained as service animals, and RARELY IF EVER used as emotional support dogs. So if I see one of those breeds, and the owner tells me it is a “service” or “support” animal, I KNOW they are lying. As well, there are NO formal certifications for “service animals.” So EVERY SINGLE “service animal ID” that anyone shows you is bogus. Every single one.
Period. It is another way you know a person is lying.
Finally, let me state the ADA law clearly so there is no confusion. First and foremost, it is NOT illegal to ask if a dog is a service dog. In fact, that is one of only two questions that a restaurant or store owner, etc. is PERMITTED BY LAW to ask. If the “service animal” owner answers in the affirmative, the restaurant or store owner, etc. may then ask, “What is it trained to do?” – because every TRUE “service” dog is trained to do certain tasks; e.g., assist with physical needs, work as a seeing eye (or ear) dog, and provide assistance with certain conditions. E.g., some service dogs are trained to sense an oncoming epileptic or ischemic attack even before the owner is aware it is coming.
People who have TRUE service animals know the law, and don’t bridle if you ask whether the animal is a “service dog.” In fact, if they do, and claim that it is illegal for you to ask that, this is ANOTHER way you know they are lying about the status of their animal.
Wow. This hater of dogs seems like fun.
I don’t hate dogs; I hate their lying owners. I love dogs. As noted, I raised money for one of the two organizations primarily responsible for training service dogs and worked around those dogs for some time. I owned a dog when I was a child. The dogs on my block all know and love me.
I am simply setting the record straight because SO MANY dog owners LIE, LIE, LIE about the status of their dogs, claiming them to be service or emotional support animals when they are nothing of the sort.
This is from one of their websites: “Why you shouldn’t pretend your dog is a service dog.
—It creates a bad impression of service dogs. This might not seem terribly consequential if you’re only faking your service dog and don’t really have a need. But for those who really are dependent on their service dog, the bad rap they are getting from all the fake “service dogs” creates extra stress.” The incident described in this article is EXACTLY what they are talking about.
Along with the things I noted, here is more:
“Below is a short list of potential behaviors that fake service dogs may exemplify:
-Being carried or wheeled around by an owner
-Tugging or pulling on a leash or not have a leash at all
-Vocalizing; whining, barking, growling.
-Showing any signs of aggression including toward other people or other dogs
-Biting or nipping at people or other animals
-Wandering or not staying by the handler’s side
-Begging for or stealing food
-Not being house trained or marking territory
-Sniffing people, animals, or objects
-Biting or damaging property
-Loses focus or is easily distracted
-Easily frightened or looks stressed
-Does not have a calm demeanor”
This is not “hatred” of dogs. This is actually protection and respect for people who actually need and have service animals.
your comment belies what ever education you have.
your comment belies whatever education you have, Ish Kabibble.
I 100% agree with the poster Ian above. We have several “service dogs” in our building and they are renters who are not allowed dogs (but have twisted the lease rules because they labeled them a ‘service dog). Not only is it a breed that is never used as a service dog, it growls and lurches at our dog and we have no grounds for any recourse because of this ‘service’ stipulation. This is infuriating to see how they abuse the rules and put REAL service dogs at risk for their own benefit.
Thank you for your kind comment.
I have one neighbor in my building who is the first one in years to get a “pet” clause in their lease because she is a professional service dog trainer, so she always has a dog. Right now, she is training the most adorable mastiff puppy to become the type of service animal that is taken to hospitals, assisted living facilities, etc. to provide love and a smile.
We also have a new tenant with a “no pets” clause who nevertheless brought in what they are claiming is an emotional support dog, but I know for a fact is not. Wrong breed (i.e., not a breed used as a service or even emotional support animal), and somehow she lived without it for the first three weeks, and only got it after they had been in the apartment for three weeks. Though she claims she has always had it.
Sadly the idea that motivates the the “emotional support dog” law that of caring for others doesn’t seem to motivate this dog’s owners. Others don’t matter to them. This situation presents the very problem with mandating a building to accept an “emotional support dog” even when a building excludes dogs completely. The danger to residents and the possibility of allergies and other complications doesn’t matter. As a result, some people who have emotional support dogs don’t really need them …it’s just a ruse to get what they want regardless of the needs or desires of other people.
I have no idea what kind of dog is involved in this incident but one thing is clear it involves bad owners. They are frankly, in my opinion, more dangerous than their dog!
“This situation presents the very problem with mandating a building to accept an “emotional support dog” even when a building excludes dogs completely.”
My point in citing the ADA law was to “explain” that “emotional support” animals are NOT covered under the law, so there CANNOT BE a “mandate” for accepting them into buildings.
There can be – and is – a “mandate” that buildings accept “service dogs,” and I explained what a landlord may ask about the dog.
“Emotional support” animals are NOT covered under the ADA – in buildings, in restaurants, in stores, or anywhere else.
Our coop’s lawyer told us that we had no choice. Apparently it is the Federal Housing Act that mandates acceptance.
You co-op’s lawyer is misinformed. The Federal Husing Act follows the ADA. The following is from the Federal Housing Act:
“Service Animals – A Broad Definition
A service animal is a working animal, not a pet. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a service animal as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Dogs that satisfy this definition are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified
by a state or local government, or any other entity.”
Note what’s missing from this? “Emotional disability.”
The FHA is based on the ADA which does NOT cover emotional support animals. That is the law.
One of the problems is that since the pandemic, restaurant owners no longer bother to ask if the dog is a service dog. Fake service dogs go freely into restaurants, museums, etc. with no questions asked. Fake service dogs are allowed into buildings which are supposedly “no dog” buildings. It is a free for all and yes, I agree it makes it hard on true service dog owners..
I must admit Joan, I love taking my support dog to the museum, on the subways, to Sardi’s, to the opera…
Not only does she need MY emotional support (we are commensally dependent), she really enjoys it- why, she wagged her tail HARD the entire Pavarotti aria at thew Met!
We have a “periodic” emotional support dog.
Whenever we want to go somewhere on an airplane, we renew the “license” for $50.
The dog owner doesn’t even apologize, minimizes the injury, yet claims the incident was detrimental to themself. Nice.
There may not be bad dogs but there are bad dog owners and masters. In this matter the management of this apartment building along with the owner are clearly responsible. Comfort dogs that attack humans are no longer “comfortable” for the owner or especially for the humans in the close quarters of an apartment. I would say that two comfort dogs Dogs that attack unprovoked are dangerous to humans and the dog owner and dog teachers need serious retraining and /or relocation.
Where is the management of this apartment building? They are also culpable especially if this is a second or third attack. I also like to hear about other close calls from other tenants. Joe is in fact looking out for the safety of all the tenants.
It seems to me that this “emotional support dog” needs an “emotional support human” to help it control its rage and aggression. Its current owners need not apply. First, it is the obligation of the owners to give evidence of the training that the dog received and to provide evidence that it is indeed licensed as an emotional support dog. (Owners – can you comply? We are waiting.) Ian R Alterman is right on target with his questions. (Owners – can you respond to them?) What we seem to have here is a badly trained dog and irresponsible owners who care only about themselves. A suit for damages seems in order before the dog goes on to inflict even more serious damage.
“First, it is the obligation of the owners to give evidence of the training that the dog received and to provide evidence that it is indeed licensed as an emotional support dog.”
With respect (and I mean that sincerely), you are missing the point. “Emotional support” animals are not REQUIRED to have training, and very few get any training at all. As well, there are NO licenses for emotional support animals. (In fact, there are no formal licenses for ACTUAL service animals, so EVERY SINGLE ID that someone may proffer to “prove” that their dog is a “service dog” is bogus. Period. 100%. In fact, people with actual service animals know this, which is why you KNOW the owner is lying if they try to show you “proof” via some sort of certificate or license or other ID.
You people are idiots. I would make a bet the so called attack was provoked but the so called victim. Dogs also have a great sense identifying a good person and a not so good person. Maybe the Accuser should do some soul searching.
You’re a moron. Go find a brain.
That’s it, blame the victim!
The first clue is the “support dog” wearing a muzzle. Tells me the owners know this dog has a tendency to be aggressive. But the owner’s minimizing the victims injuries and blaming them in the same breath is what gets my goat. And my guess is, these are the type of people who would file a suit immediately if the roles were reversed. SMH.