VERNON -- The lawyer for the former animal control officer being sued over the impoundment of a pit bull mix that bit off part of a mailman's finger has accused the dog's owner of maligning his client and failing to take responsibility for what occurred.

VERNON -- The lawyer for the township's former animal control officer, who is being sued over the impoundment of a pit bull mix that bit off part of a mailman's finger 17 months ago, has accused the dog's owner of maligning his client and failing to take responsibility for what occurred.

In a statement to the New Jersey Herald, the attorney for former Animal Control Officer Tom Maellaro, who retired in November, said Maellaro's character and dedication were being unfairly called into question after 25 years of good-faith service to the township as the result of a lawsuit he is now facing by the dog's owner.

Maellaro's lawyer, Steven J. Bryan, a West Milford attorney, took particular exception to the lawsuit's allegation that Maellaro had expressed a hatred of dogs. Bryan insisted Maellaro never made such a statement.

"The characterizations made by the plaintiffs against Mr. Maellaro are denied and are certainly not supported by the facts, including the statement attributed to him" about hating dogs, said Bryan.

Bryan's comments were in response to the New Jersey Herald's Jan. 31 report of the lawsuit filed in November against Maellaro and the Township of Vernon by township resident Jose Galvan and his wife, Raquel Galvan, over the September 2016 impounding of their dog following the attack on the mailman.

Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are current Animal Control Officer James Epperly, who was working as Maellaro's assistant at the time, and Township Administrator Charles Voelker, both of whom have declined to comment on the pending case.

In the suit, Jose Galvan accuses Maellaro and Epperly of overstepping their authority and threatening Galvan's wife with arrest after she initially refused to let them take the dog into custody following the September 2016 bite incident.

The lawsuit asserts that Galvan, a Paterson police officer who was on duty and thus not home at the time, agreed to their request under duress and only after a Vernon police officer reiterated the request to Galvan by phone. The lawsuit alleges that Galvan acquiesced based on assurances the dog would only be kept for a 10-day quarantine period and out of fear his employment in law enforcement would be jeopardized if he did not comply with the Vernon police officer's directive.

Bryan, in response, indicated Maellaro would have no comment until after the case is over, but he insisted Maellaro acted properly at all times and predicted the lawsuit against his client would be dismissed.

"Mr. Maellaro has a 25-year unblemished record as a dedicated public servant during which time he has overseen dozens of dog bite cases," Bryan said. "He has always displayed sympathy for the dog in such cases and readily acknowledges that it's rarely if ever the dog's fault."

Rather, said Bryan, "It's almost always the owner's fault for either improperly training, keeping, or otherwise handling the dog and putting the animal in a situation that it shouldn't be placed in. Dog ownership is a serious responsibility. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs failed to live up to theirs."

A linchpin of the lawsuit against Maellaro is the plaintiffs' contention that the mailman who was attacked had been instructed by them to leave all deliveries by a curbside mailbox and not to set foot on their property, where their dog, though loose at the time, was allegedly restrained by an electronic collar.

The lawsuit accuses the mailman of "trespassing" onto their property by attempting to leave two packages at their front door in spite of the instructions allegedly given to him to stay off their property. The lawsuit claims the mailman further provoked the dog by throwing the packages at the animal when it charged him, a gesture that the lawsuit says was done in panic.

Bryan, however, said there is no record of any such instructions having been given to the mailman.

"Even if you accept, as the plaintiffs allege, that they gave specific instructions for the mailman not to go onto their property, which is totally unsupported by the facts, it begs the question of why you would give such instructions unless you know your dog is potentially dangerous or cannot be controlled," Bryan said. "Even if it were true that the plaintiffs gave such instructions, what about others who might approach the plaintiffs' front door? Shouldn't they be able to do so free from any unprovoked attack?"

Bryan said there is established law that imposes strict liability on the owner of a dog that bites someone who is lawfully on that person's property, particularly in the case of a victim performing his or her job duties in accordance with the laws or postal regulations of the United States.

"Certainly the mailman was rightfully there," he said.

"The plaintiffs' failure to take responsibility for their failure to supervise and control their dog is staggering," Bryan added. "Instead of being apologetic after being advised that their dog had attacked a mailman and severed his finger off, the plaintiff responded by attempting to have (the mailman) arrested for trespassing on his property.

"He then proceeds to blame the mailman who had every right to be on the premises in furtherance of his duties and who was, in fact, retreating to his mail truck when he was attacked.

"He blames the mailman for getting bit, erroneously claiming without any factual basis that he threw packages at the dog, and then files a frivolous lawsuit against the town which the town is now obligated to defend, at great expense, despite the fact that it is without merit. That takes a certain kind of person."

Galvan's attorney, when asked for a response, insisted the mailman's actions were responsible for provoking the attack but denied his client had tried to have the mailman arrested.

Bryan, however, maintains it was an unprovoked attack. He added that state law gives an animal control officer the authority to impound a dog that causes serious bodily injury in an unprovoked attack.

"There was clearly a serious injury and it was an unprovoked attack in this case," he said. "After the dog was secured, the severed portion of the mailman's finger was recovered on the plaintiffs' front lawn with 8 to 12 inches of tendon still attached to it.

"There's no statute that says you can keep a vicious dog so long as it remains within the confines of your property or within the confines of your electronic fence. It still poses an unacceptable risk to others."

Following the attack, Galvan received a summons from Maellaro under the state's vicious dog law, under which a "guilty" finding would have resulted in mandatory euthanasia for his dog. The case was later transferred to Wantage Municipal Court after Galvan served notice of his intent to sue Vernon.

Bryan, referring to the initial decision that came out of that case, said "(this) dog was found by a judge who weighed all of the evidence before him to be vicious."

Galvan later appealed the ruling in Superior Court, where a consent agreement with the county prosecutor's office spared the dog's life by having it reclassified as "potentially dangerous," a less onerous designation that came with strict conditions requiring, among other things, that the dog be housed permanently in a specially built kennel and muzzled when taken out for walks or other permitted excursions.

As a result of the court order, which requires ongoing monthly inspections by Vernon's animal control officer, the Vernon Township Council has since transferred oversight of all animal control services in the township to the police department.

The Township Council last month also enacted a special $700 licensing fee for dogs adjudicated by a court as potentially dangerous. The fee, which is provided for by state law, is intended to defray what officials argue is the unfair cost burden that the township is being forced to shoulder as a result of having to enforce the court order.

Galvan has since been served with seven new complaints from Vernon's animal control officer accusing him of failing to adhere to the terms of the court order by, among other things, not keeping his dog inside the required kennel and not having the dog properly muzzled.

He has since pleaded not guilty and, in an amended lawsuit filed last month, has accused Vernon of maliciously prosecuting him in retaliation for his original suit that he filed in November. Vernon officials deny any retaliatory motive.

John V. McDermott, the Vernon-based attorney representing Galvan in his suit, offered the following in response to Bryan's comments:

"Mr. Bryan did not take any part in the proceeedings involving this matter and, to my knowledge, never had any involvement until some time after Mr. Maellaro was served with (Galvan's) summons and complaint," McDermott said. "Therefore, all of his comments are subjectively received from his clients, and are not objective in any manner."

"The fact that he claims the plaintiffs attempted to have the mailman arrested for trespassing is without any basis in fact. That was never anything that Mr. or Mrs. Galvan did.

"In terms of the rest of this, he's trying to create sympathy for his client based on the nature of the injuries suffered by the mailman. While there's no doubt the mailman was injured, his injuries were a result of a provoked attack by a trespasser, and what Mr. Bryan fails to realize and acknowledge is in our appeal, the Superior Court did away with everything that was determined in municipal court -- so everything he's relying upon was voided."

�

Eric Obernauer can also be contacted on Twitter:

@EricObernNJH or by phone at 973-383-1213.