VERIFIED PETITION
1. The plaintiff in this matter is the State of Connecticut ex rel, Raymond Connors,
State of Connecticut Animal Control Officer (“Chief State Animal Control Officer”), who
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-328(b), may exercise the powers granted to any State Animal
Control Officer.
2. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a, any animal control officer may lawfully
take physical custody of any animal upon issuance of a warrant finding probable cause that such
animal is neglected or found cruelly treated, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-247 and may
seek to obtain temporary and permanent custody of any animal who is neglected or who is
3. Pursuant to a search and seizure warrant signed on December 15, 2009 and
executed on December 16, 2009, the State of Connecticut, Department of Agriculture (“the
Department”), through a State Animal Control Officer(s), seized nineteen (19) horses, three (3)
mules (hereinafter the horses and mules seized are collectively termed “the equine”), as well as
one (1) goat, two (2) guinea pigs, two (2) rabbits, two (2) doves, one (1) parakeet, two (2) ferrets,
and four (4) dogs (hereinafter all of the animals seized on December 16, 2009 are collectively
termed “the animals”) at 130 and/or 138 Spring Road, North Haven, Connecticut (“the
4. On December 16, 2009 the plaintiff took physical custody of the animals
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a(b) and now seeks to obtain temporary and permanent
custody of the animals pursuant to the procedures outlined in Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 22-329a and to
5. Upon information and belief, Gina-Lee Rapuano (“Rapuano”) is the owner of the
property and the owner of many of the animals that are the subject of this petition.
6. Upon information and belief, Rapuano owns at least nine, and up to fourteen of
the horses, the goat, the guinea pigs, the rabbits, the doves, the parakeet, the ferrets, and the dogs.
8. Upon information and belief, Paul Novicki (“Novicki”) is the owner of four of the
horses and two of the mules that were kept at the property, that are the subject of this petition.
9. Upon information and belief, Novicki has repeatedly been the subject of neglect
and/or cruel treatment of animals pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a and dozens of animals
owned by Novicki have been seized and adjudicated neglected by this Court.
0826954-S, the State petitioned for ownership of twenty-seven (27) horses, one (1) mule, and
one (1) cow owned by Novicki pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a. On September 22,
2
2003, after a hearing and finding that the twenty-seven horses, mule, and cow were neglected,
the Court, Stengel, J., vested ownership of these animals in the Department of Agriculture.
11. Upon information and belief, as a result of his mistreatment of the twenty-seven
horses, Novicki was criminally charged with multiple counts of cruelty to animals. On
December 16, 2003, Novicki entered a plea to two counts of cruelty to animals and was placed
on probation. On October 1, 2004, the Court, Frazzini, J., changed a condition of probation
prohibiting Novicki from possessing horses and granted Novicki permission to lease his property
12. In State ex rel. Barbara Godejohn v. One Horse, One Donkey, One Mule, Seven
Chickens, and Eighteen Chicks, CV-05-4011761-S, the state again instituted a Conn. Gen. Stat. §
22-329a action for ownership of Novicki animals. The Court, Bryant, J., vested ownership of
13. Upon information and belief, as a result of his mistreatment of the animals
referenced in paragraph 12, on April 6, 2006, Novicki was criminally convicted of one count of
14. In State ex rel. Maureen Griffin v. Five (5) Horses, Three (3) Mules, Thirty-Eight
(38) Rabbits, Two (2) Chickens, Two (2) Ducks & Three (3) Pheasants, CV-07-4032281-S, at the
conclusion of an evidentiary hearing for temporary care and custody held on September 10,
2007, the Court, Graham, J., found that there was reasonable cause to find that the animals’
condition and circumstances surrounding their care required that custody of the animals be
placed on a temporary basis with the Department of Agriculture. Thereafter, ownership of all the
animals was ordered by the Court to the Department of Agriculture after Novicki failed to post
3
the requisite bond required by statute and Novicki voluntarily relinquished ownership of all of
these animals.
16. Upon information and belief, Crystal Kelly (“Kelly”) is the owner of one of the
horses and one of the mules that were kept at the property, that are the subject of this petition.
18. Upon information and belief, Tom Jermine (“Jermine”) is the owner of one of the
horses that were kept on the property, that were subject to the seizure.
19. Upon information and belief, Jermine resides in East Haven, CT.
20. Upon information and belief, one or two of the horses that were kept at the
property, that are the subject of this petition, is claimed to be owned by David Rusgrove
occurred a few days prior to the seizure by the Department. No written proof of the alleged
22. Upon information and belief, Rapuano has claimed that Margaret Blancato owns
one of the horses that was kept at the property, that is the subject of this petition. This change of
ownership, from Rapuano to Blancato, is alleged, by Rapuano, to have occurred a few days prior
to the seizure by the Department. No written proof of this alleged change of ownership has been
forthcoming.
4
24. Upon information and belief, Rapuano has claimed that a Diane “Chizck” owns
one of the horses that was kept at the property, that is the subject of this petition. This change of
ownership, from Rapuano to “Chizck,” is alleged, by Rapuano, to have occurred a few days prior
to the seizure by the Department. No written proof of this alleged change of ownership has been
forthcoming. Rapuano has not provided the spelling of this individual’s name, or this
25. State Animal Control Officer Barbara Godejohn (“ACO Godejohn”) inspected
and monitored equine, and other animals housed outside on the property from February 2005, to
26. Equine were inspected at the property by one or more state animal control
officer(s) on or about February 17, 2005, March 18, 2005, April 27, 2005, June 8, 2006, October
9, 2008, November 12, 2008, January 22, 2009, March 4, 2009, July 8, 2009, December 7, 2009,
27. During an inspection of the property on February 17, 2005, ACO Godejohn
observed approximately eighteen (18) horses at the property. ACO Godejohn observed that there
was very little hay or grain on the property and that there was not enough food at the property for
the horses to eat for the rest of the day. ACO Godejohn observed that the stalls where the horses
were kept were filthy with excrement. ACO Godejohn observed that two (2) of the horses were
in thin condition. ACO Godejohn orally advised Rapuano to increase the body weight of the thin
horses and to have a farrier check the horses’ hooves and trim the hooves as needed.
28. On or about March 18, 2005, ACO Godejohn and Animal Control Officer Richard
Gregan (“ACO Gregan”) inspected the property. ACO Godejohn observed approximately
5
seventeen (17) horses at the property and that at this inspection, at least five (5) of the horses
were now in thin condition. ACO Godejohn observed that there was no grain at all and very
little hay to feed the horses at the property. ACO Godejohn verbally advised Rapuano that the
thin horses needed to gain weight and that the horses had to be provided a sufficient amount of
adequate food.
29. During the inspection of the property on or about March 18, 2005, ACO
Godejohn observed that the stalls where the horses were kept were still filthy with excrement and
that there was standing water in the barn that was approximately ankle deep. ACO Godejohn
observed that several of the horses needed to have their hoofs trimmed.
30. On or about April 27, 2005, ACOs Godejohn and Gregan inspected the property.
ACO Godejohn observed that several horses were still thin. ACO Godejohn observed grain on
the property but only two (2) bales of hay to feed approximately eighteen horses. The horses did
not have access to enough food to feed them for the rest of the day. The stalls were dirty with
fecal material and needed to be cleaned. ACO Godejohn verbally advised Rapuano that the thin
horses needed to gain weight and that the horses had to be provided a sufficient amount of
adequate food.
31. In response to the April 27, 2005 inspection, by letter dated June 1, 2005, ACO
Godejohn advised Rapuano in writing that the horses stalls must be kept clean and free of excess
manure; that a veterinarian must examine the horses in thin condition if they are not gaining
weight; to follow any veterinarian recommendations; and that the horses must be provided with
6
32. On or about June 8, 2006, ACO Godejohn inspected the property and observed
approximately twenty-one (21) horses at the property and five (5) of the horses were
underweight. ACO Godejohn observed that the horses were kept in dirty stalls and that nails
were sticking out of plywood in certain stalls which could injure the horses. Rats and mice were
observed in the stalls. The stalls were dirty with fecal material and needed to be cleaned. ACO
Godejohn verbally advised Rapuano that the thin horses needed to gain weight and that the
veterinarian that several of the horses at the property were thin, had no water, and that fecal
34. On or about October 9, 2008, ACO Godejohn inspected the property in response
to the veterinarian complaint and observed approximately twenty-two (22) horses at the property.
ACO Godejohn observed two (2) very thin horses and one (1) thin horse and verbally advised
Rapuano to provide proper food to these horses so that they could put on more weight. Two (2)
horses at the property had no water at all to drink and four (4) caged ducks on the property had
no water at all to drink. The stalls where the horses were kept were extremely dirty with fecal
35. On or about November 12, 2008, ACOs Godejohn and Gregan inspected the
property. During the inspection ACO Godejohn observed approximately twenty-nine (29)
horses at the property. During the inspection the horses were all photographed and “weight-
taped” to determine their weight. ACO Godejohn observed twenty-three (23) underweight
horses, of which thirteen (13) appeared to have a significant loss of body fat. Eleven (11) of
7
these horses appeared to be so thin that ACO Godejohn was concerned about the health and well-
being of these horses and whether these horses would survive the winter.
36. During the November 12, 2008 inspection, ACO Godejohn observed seven (7)
horses that needed foot care, four (4) horses that needed dental care, and another horse that
needed medical care for an open wound. The stalls were extremely dirty with fecal material and
needed to be cleaned. ACO Godejohn provided a hand written notice to Rapuano to provide foot
care to seven horses, to provide dental care to four horses, and to have a licensed veterinarian
examine the thirteen thin horses and the one horse that required medical attention.
37. On or about January 8, 2009, ACO Godejohn received a complaint from a woman
boarding a horse with Rapuano. The complainant stated that the horse had lost weight and had
38. On or about January 9, 2009, ACO Godejohn spoke with Rapuano by telephone
to discuss the care of the horses at the property. Upon information and belief, a licensed
veterinarian had not yet examined the fourteen horses, as requested by ACO Godejohn on
39. On or about January 22, 2009, ACOs Godejohn and State ACO Nancy Jarvis
inspected the property and met a veterinarian, a Dr. Ned Shankman, at the property.
40. On or about January 22, 2009, Dr. Shankman found that numerous horses needed
to have their teeth “floated” and that this could contribute to the horses being underweight. Dr.
Shankman did not float the horses’ teeth at that time. Dr. Shankman did not find any medical
8
41. On or about January 22, 2009, Dr. Shankman gave Rapuano oral advice on what
to feed the horses kept on her property and how much to feed them. Dr. Shankman stated that
42. On or about July 8, 2009, ACOs Godejohn and Gregan inspected the property.
During the inspection, the equine were all “weight-taped.” Ten (10) of the horses had lost more
weight since the inspection on November 12, 2008. The stalls were extremely dirty with fecal
material and needed to be cleaned. ACO Godejohn verbally informed Rapuano to provide hay to
the equine at the property at all times and to increase the amount of grain provided to the equines
at the property.
43. On or about December 7, 2009, ACO Godejohn and ACO Gregan inspected the
property and observed approximately nineteen (19) horses and three (3) mules at the property.
None of the equines had any hay available for them to eat. ACO Godejohn observed that
eighteen (18) equine were underweight. ACO Godejohn observed that seven (7) of the horses
were significantly underweight and ACO Godejohn was concerned about the health and well-
being of these horses because of their lack of body fat. Of these seven horses, five (5) had lost
44. On or about December 7, 2009, ACO Godejohn observed that the stalls in which
the equine resided were filthy and the equine were standing in feces and urine approximately six
inches deep. ACO Godejohn observed that eight (8) of the horses had either cracked hooves,
9
45. On or about December 9, 2009, ACO Godejohn inspected the property in
response to a phone call to ACO Godejohn from Rapuano. ACO Godejohn observed that the
46. On or about December 9, 2009, ACO Godejohn observed the equine in filthy
stalls. Approximately half of the equine were standing up to their ankles in stalls that were filled
47. Upon information and belief, Rapuano was hospitalized at the time of the
48. Upon information and belief, Rapuano was still hospitalized on December 11,
2009, and the Department was not aware of when Rapuano would return to the property.
49. On or about December 11, 2009, the Department received a complaint stating that
there was no hay at the property for the equine to eat. In response to the complaint, State
Animal Control Officer Todd Curry inspected the property on or about December 11, 2009 and
observed that there was only one-half of a bale of hay on the property, that there was no hay at
all that was actually available for the equine to eat, and that the equine also had no water to
drink. The horses were thirsty and hungry and readily drank water and ate food when provided
50. On or about December 11, 2009, the stalls at the property housing the equine were
filthy, and some of the equine stood in excrement and mud up to approximately two feet deep.
A goat on the property was locked in a dog crate filled with at least one inch of feces and the
goat had no food or water. Two rabbits located outside on the property had no food or water and
no rabbit food was observed on the property. Three (3) dogs that were observed at the property
10
had no food or water and no dog food was observed on the property. The ferrets on the property
had no food or water. The birds on the property had no food or water.
51. The December 11, 2009 complainant referenced in paragraph number 49 donated
hay (approximately 100 bales) and grain (approximately 5 bags) to feed the equine on the
property.
52. On December 16, 2009, the day of the seizure by the Department, ACO Godejohn
observed that a few of the equine had hay to eat, but the majority of the equine on the property
53. On December 16, 2009, a state animal control officer observed that the only
access the equine had to water was water that was dirty.
54. On December 16, 2009, the equine at the property were hungry and thirsty and
readily ate and drank food and fresh water provided to them by the Department.
55. On December 16, 2009, ACO Godejohn observed the equine in filthy stalls. The
equine were standing, from between their ankles up to their knees, in stalls that were filled with
56. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed that one of the equine had no
57. On December 16, 2009, ACO Godejohn observed that several of the equine had a
“rain-rot” or fungus on their skin that had led to loss of hair and scabs.
58. On December 16, 2009, ACO Godejohn observed that the barn and stalls in which
the equine were housed was infested with rats and rats freely roamed the stalls in the area of the
equine.
11
59. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed two guinea pigs on the property
that had no food or water, were in a filthy cage filled with feces and urine, and were lethargic.
The guinea pigs at the property were hungry and thirsty and readily ate food and drank water
60. On December 16, 2009, ACO Godejohn observed that a bag of guinea pig food
that had been provided to Rapuano by Godejohn on December 7, 2009, remained un-opened at
the property.
61. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed two doves on the property that
had no food or water and were in a filthy cage filled with excrement. The doves at the property
were thirsty and readily drank water provided to them by the Department.
62. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed two rabbits on the property that
had no food or water and were in a dirty cage. One of the rabbits was visibly lethargic. The
rabbits on the property were thirsty and readily drank water provided to them by the Department.
63. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed a parakeet on the property that
had food and water mixed with excrement and was in a dirty cage.
64. On December 16, 2009, ACO Godejohn and Gregan observed one goat on the
property. The goat was able to freely roam the property outside and also inside, into Rapuano’s
home. The goat only had access to stray hay and puddles to drink.
65. On December 16, 2009, state Animal Control Officers observed that Rapuano’s
home was filthy with dirt, rat feces and general debris and garbage. A rat was observed in
Rapuano’s bedroom and the goat referenced in paragraph 64 was seen on Rapuano’s bed.
12
66. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed four dogs on the property. The
67. One of the dogs owned by Rapuano, a mixed breed lab puppy has died since the
seizure on December 16, 2009. This dog has been sent to the University of Connecticut for a
68. On December 16, 2009, ACO Gregan observed two ferrets on the property.
69. Based on the above facts, the animals at the property appear to be/have been,
70. Based on the above facts, there was reasonable cause to find that the animals’
condition and circumstances surrounding their care required the Department to immediately take
71. Based on the above facts, the animals should remain in the physical custody of the
Department of Agriculture.
13
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a the plaintiff requests:
1. That the Court issue an order to the owner(s) of the animals that were seized, and
those that were born after the seizure of their mother (if any), to show cause why the court shall
not vest in the Connecticut Department of Agriculture the temporary care and custody of the
animals (pending an ownership hearing on the petition) pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-
329a(d). In the alternative, plaintiff requests that the Court issue an order vesting in the
Connecticut Department of Agriculture the temporary care and custody of the animals that were
seized, and those that were born after the seizure of their mother (if any), pending an ownership
hearing on the petition. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a(d), a hearing on temporary care
and custody shall be held not later than fourteen (14) days after issuance of an order to show
cause or an order vesting temporary care and custody to the Department of Agriculture.
2. That upon ordering the animals to the temporary care and custody of the
Department of Agriculture, that the Court issue an order requiring the owner(s) of the animals
that were seized, and those that were born after the seizure of their mother (if any), to either
surety or cash bond with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture in the amount of five
hundred dollars ($500) per animal for the reasonable expenses in caring and providing for such
3. That the Court issue an order pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a that the
animals owned by their respective owners were neglected and/or were cruelly treated in violation
14
4. That the Court vest permanent ownership and custody of the surviving animals
with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a(g) and if
necessary, order the humane destruction of any of the animal(s) if such animal(s) is so injured or
5. That, if the Court makes a finding under subdivision (1) or (2) of Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 22-329a(g) less than thirty days after issuance of an order of temporary care and custody and
the owner of the animals has posted the statutory bond pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-
329a(g), the Court order the owners to pay the Connecticut Department of Agriculture an amount
of twenty-five (25) dollars per day, per equine, and fifteen (15) dollars per day per other animal,
for the number of days less than thirty that the Department did not have temporary care and
custody of the animals less any veterinary costs and expenses incurred for the welfare of the
animals.
6. That, pursuant to Gen. Stat. § 22-329a(h), if the Court finds that the animals are
neglected or are cruelly treated, the Court order the owners to pay the Connecticut Department of
Agriculture the expenses incurred in providing proper food, shelter and care to each animal it has
taken custody of under subsection (a) or (b) of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a and the expenses
incurred in providing temporary care and custody pursuant to an order vesting temporary care
and custody, calculated at the rate of twenty-five (25) dollars per day, per equine, and fifteen
(15) dollars a day for each other animal, until the date that ownership of the animals are vested in
the State and also all veterinary costs and expenses incurred for the welfare of the animals that
15
7. That the Court order such other and additional relief as is just and equitable to
This action is brought by the State of Connecticut and therefore, it is not liable for any
PLAINTIFF
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
RAYMOND CONNORS
EX REL, STATE ANIMAL CONTROL
OFFICER
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: _________________________________
Gail Shane
Assistant Attorney General
Juris No. 416497
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Tel. (860) 808-5250
16
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss. Hartford
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
the subscriber, and made oath to the truth of the matters contained in the aforesaid complaint.
________________________________
Barbara Godejohn
_________________________________
Commissioner of the Superior Court
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss. Hartford
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Personally appeared Richard Gregan, State of Connecticut, Animal Control Officer, the
subscriber, and made oath to the truth of the matters contained in the aforesaid complaint.
________________________________
Richard Gregan
_________________________________
Commissioner of the Superior Court
17
18