Man Takes Battle To Court After Former Employer Demands Return Of Working Dog

When Barry Myrick started working for M & M Environmental, a pest-control firm in Queens, New York he was assigned an uncommon piece of apparatus – a bedbug sniffing canine named Roxy. Over the previous 5 years, Myrick and Roxy lived and labored collectively, forming a strong bond of affection and friendship.

However in March one thing occurred that modified every part. Myrick was laid off. A couple of months later he and his spouse packed up Roxy and their different canine Robbie and relocated to Philadelphia. It was then that M & M contacted Myrick demanding he return Roxy to the corporate.

Taking her out of state was thought-about an act of theft as Roxy is technically their “property.”

Myrick was comfortable to return his uniform, firm automobile, and bank card when he misplaced his job, however he by no means dreamed he must say goodbye to Roxy. He refused to provide her again and M & M reported the canine stolen. Myrick now faces a fancy custody battle in addition to grand larceny fees.

Based on Gary Port, M & M’s lawyer, the corporate didn’t ask Myrick to return Roxy in March as a result of he led them to consider he would ultimately be returning to work. Myrick additionally signed an settlement in the beginning of his employment acknowledging the canine as firm property.

Final month, a Queens choose rejected M and M’s demand for Roxy’s return, ruling it’s in her finest curiosity to stick with the Myrick household whereas the case performs out. This is similar customary utilized in custody fights over pets when {couples} get divorced. Port says the ruling might result in related battles over information canines and police canines.

“I don’t assume the choose actually thought by the ramifications when he determined that he was going to take a look at divorce regulation versus possession of animals. Working canines are used far and wide,” he instructed Spectrum Information NY1.

For now, Roxy is residence in Philadelphia and Myrick’s friends have organized social media and GoFundMe campaigns to help in his court docket battle.

“Possibly different issues will occur that aren’t in my favor, however I don’t care about these issues so long as I do know she’s not going wherever I’m gonna really feel like we gained,” he mentioned.

M & M is interesting the choose’s ruling. They don’t plan to let such a worthwhile piece of apparatus go and not using a struggle. As for the legal grand larceny cost in opposition to Myrick, the Queens DA didn’t reply to NY1’s request for remark.

Though M & M Environmental technically “owns” Roxy, the Myrick household has beloved and cared for her for over 5 years. Who do you assume the courts ought to declare Roxy’s rightful proprietor?

[hlm_blog_fb_share_text]

H/T  & Featured Screenshot through Spectrum Information NY1