Dog Owner euthanizes dog and commits suicide

Suicide is always sad and often preventable.
But it is very rarely someone else's fault.

the whole story is very sad, but I am hoping people know the facts about the man and the situation with the building so that the truth comes out.

I could never imagine euthanizing a pet that I loved, even over an apartment that I owned, I would sell it first....that's why we don't have all the facts yet starting with the man's mental state of mind.

I don't immediately point my finger at the landlord as many people are quick to do.

We have a pretty clear sense of this man's mental state of mind. The suicide is a pretty definitive indication.

Pointing the finger at the landlord or the co-op board or the managing agent is absurd.

Suicide is sad, but the fault rarely extends beyond the person who pulled the trigger, popped the pills, or used the knife.

The building drafted a policy banning newly introduced pit-bulls, no problem there many buildings do. But the article suggests hey may have been harassed and targeted..

“People were complaining about his dog,” said neighbor Kevan Cleary, 63, an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law
School. “It was open season on him.”

Lia Pettigrew, who runs a pet-care company, said, “Everybody knows that he had been harassed by the building
management.”

The fact that Santino committed suicide clearly indicates he needed help. That the Condo came up with a uniform
dog policy is also fine, but if they targeted and harassed Santino and contributed to his taking his life, there
could be issues.

How does a third party contribute to someone taking their own life?

Did the the building prevent this man from finding the pooch a new home?
It's the post...if the headline read " depressed actor com...." you wouldn't even read the article.

If you read the article, the tenants were harassing Mr. Santino. His dog was grandfathered in. No more pit bulls were allowed. Supposively the dog did have some issues, so it sounds like everything just got to him regarding the dog situation (and who knows what else), so he thought the only resolution was to have his beloved dog euthanized.
It's a sad, sad situation. And I hope Mr. Santino is at peace with his beloved pooch.

RIP Mr. Santino and his beloved pet.

A tragic situation that wasn't *entirely* his fault.

Pitbull? Why not a hyena, tiger, alligator, or badger? And goats and pigs and chickens. Poop and fur and slobber all over everything. Dog owners, yeeesh.

West34, then choose not to live in a dog friendly bldg.. Dogs can be alot cleaner than humans and children. You are obviously not a dog lover, and that is your entitlement.

Stafford Terriers get a bad rap. They are great dogs, the problem is irresponsible owners.

Only one person popped the pills. He was not force fed or injected with drugs.

Just a few months ago the Post took a different tack toward pit bulls: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/leash_the_hounds_zcdXCksvDbuIWD8utn6f9L

Imagine if some kid had been nipped in the same building. Instead of "beloved pet", we'd have read about helpless tots savaged by ravening pit bulls, condo boards indifferent to residents' safety, over-compensating down-low owners of pit bulls, and so on.

I can't bear to hear about dogs being put to sleep. What a sad story!

I read that he was required to bring the dog down in the service elevator and that implied he was being harassed. That's pretty much standard procedure in most doorman buildings. Owners pay big bucks to live in the building and should take priority over dogs. You shouldn't impose your dog on others that may not feel comfortable being enclosed in a small space with a barking or jittery dog. Also dogs have accidents and it's better it it happens in the service elevator.

As to the barking, it's pretty easy to use a voice (bark) activated recorder in an adjoining apartment to prove if the dog is an unreasonable barker. If the dog is preventing others from the "quiet enjoyment" of their apartments it's pretty much a no-brainer that the dog will ultimately have leave if the disturbance isn't resolved. Again standard procedure not harassment.

There is so much more to this story than reported in the daily rags.

Found on the web relating to this story - "a veterinarian told Santino that his dog was becoming increasingly more aggressive"

So nutty unemployed owner has "increasingly aggressive" pitbill and can't bear the notion that his neighbors, probably many with defenseless little kids, don't want to bear the real risk of being around an unpredictable and potentially deadly animal every day. So nutty owner offs himself and we are supposed to feel bad about him AND his dangerous dog?

It's sad but the owner was going to off himself anyway.
He could have given the dog away to a pitbull rescue organization first and then offed himself after.

West34,

I think we can feel bad for a person who is so distraught that they end their own life. I don't know if the circumstances make a difference.

I agree that we will never know the true circumstances that drove Mr Santino to take his own life and whatever they really were it remains a tragedy for his neighbors and friends.

One of my personal complaints is that even in a building that is not dog/pet friendly there are some people-not Mr Santino evidently, who feel they still have the right to own a prohibited animal.The president of my board told me that if someone is able to sneak a pet into our building and the pet resides there for 90 days the board cannot remove the animal even though our bylaws prohibit pets.

RealEstateNY: "I read that he was required to bring the CHILD down in the service elevator and that implied he was being harassed. That's SHOULD BE pretty much standard procedure in most doorman buildings. Owners pay big bucks to live in the building and should take priority over CHILDREN. You shouldn't impose your CHILD on others that may not feel comfortable being enclosed in a small space with a barking or jittery CHILD. Also CHILD have accidents and it's better it it happens in the service elevator."

There...I corrected your post to reflect how some others feel. Not saying it is realistic, but some people feel about children the way feel about dogs.

I've lived in doorman buildings for 11 years - and had a dog for 6 of those. I have never once seen a dog have an accident in the elevator (or seen the remnants of one). Doesn't mean it doesn't happen- that's what mops are for.

Well put downtown.
Did they guy have issues, of course he did.
Did he need to be harassed by staff and neighbors in his own home... NO. Clearly something would have driven him over the edge, but did it have to be the one place he should feel safe and secure.
If you don't like dogs or don't want to live with them... rock on. Live in a dog free building or move to the burbs.

>Did he need to be harassed by staff and neighbors in his own home...

Welcome to New York. We have conflict here.

>Clearly something would have driven him over the edge

People who commit suicide drive themselves over the edge.

>If you don't like dogs or don't want to live with them... rock on. Live in a dog free building or move to the burbs.

Right, this building was non-aggressive dog. This man was required to comply. That's about it.

Suicide is sad. But no one other than the victim is to blame.

how about you?

I'm well, thanks. How about you?

why do you do this?

do ... what?

huntersburg
14 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

shong, if you are expecting an email from http://www.google.com/search?q=caonima, can I suggest that you check your Junk folder. That type of language gets filtered out.

murray888
about 7 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

sjtmd - based on what West81st has posted in the past - he was a rent-stabilized UWS tenant who (finally) bought his apartment from the sponsor at below-market price. don't know if he tells that to his real estate clients.

caonima
about 23 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

well said downtown1234.

based on the 2 brokers' behavior in this thread, they are good at personal remarks, but definitely not good for any business. maybe they could become good bouncers at a nightclub or something.

wait, let me get something straight - you believe that I'm murray888 and caonima?

no...its a known fact

And your belief is that I created these two posters after temporarily retiring Jim and Lucille, right?

downtown1234:"Not saying it is realistic."

It's not and never will be. People will always trump pets.

Still don't see why bringing a dog up and down in the service elevator is such a big deal. I guess for drama queens it is. It's not like being asked to take the steps.

Notice you didn't mention the barking issue where dog owners leave them home alone for 8, 10 12 hours and haven't the slightest idea, nor do they care, whether they are disturbing neighbors. It's about the me society.

@chuck0824

"One of my personal complaints is that even in a building that is not dog/pet friendly there are some people-not Mr Santino evidently, who feel they still have the right to own a prohibited animal.The president of my board told me that if someone is able to sneak a pet into our building and the pet resides there for 90 days the board cannot remove the animal even though our bylaws prohibit pets."

The law does not provide an exemption for pets that allows an person to "sneak a pet into" a building & keep it. However, if a resident's keeping of a pet has been "open and notorious" for 90 days, and the landlord (board, etc.) has not issued a summons, or petition, or otherwise formally complained; then the person can keep their animal, even if there is a "no pets" provision in place.

It is silly to make people bring pets through the service elevator. My dog is a lot less annoying than the children jumping up and down on the elevator who all want to "push the button".

And one other thing -

Notice you didn't mention the SCREAMING/JUMPING/RUNNING issue where PARENTS DON'T DISCIPLINE THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE home for 8, 10 12 hours and haven't the slightest idea, nor do they care, whether they are disturbing neighbors. It's about the me society.

There...I fixed it for you!

>Notice you didn't mention the SCREAMING/JUMPING/RUNNING issue where PARENTS DON'T DISCIPLINE THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE home for 8, 10 12 hours

In your experience, you know of people leave their young children home alone for 8-12 hours?

Did I say alone? Nope. Children are loud and annoying even with their parents around. The problem is parents who think junior is so cute (or is going to be the next Mozart or Monet) and that everybody else finds junior as cute as they do.

So your proposal is what? No children?

"A leopard that survived the mass killing of exotic animals at an Ohio reserve last year was euthanized after a zookeeper accidentally struck it with a heavy steel gate while closing its cage at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, officials said Tuesday." Woops, take the belt and tie off that zookeeper.

Well..since you asked...If I were dictator of NYC, I would ban children south of 96th street in Manhattan. Since I am probably not going to be dictator anytime soon, I would settle for parents who understand that not everybody thinks their children are as cute as they do and act accordingly.

well said.
no children and no dogs below 96th street.
also in first class on planes.

we could finally enjoy our lives without those annoyances.

Such a sad story

my bet is that you are more annoying that a child or a pet.

SunnyD - I think you are missing the point. If a resident sneaks a pet into a building that does not allow pets Fido is not automatically allowed to stay after 90 days. The pet must be displayed openingly. That means, if the resident has a 8 pound dog and hides him/her in his/her bad every time Fido has to go outside, Fido is not being displayed openingly and will not be permitted to stay after the 90 day period. If, however, a resident walks Fido dog on its leash in the elevator, lets the doorman and super play with Fido, let's the neighbor through the ball in the lobby for Fido, etc. and nobody complains, then after 90 days of no complaints, Fido could stay. I have no problems with buildings that don't allow pets - I would never live in one, but I understand not everybody likes pets as much as me and people should be allowed to make that decision. I wish the same were true of children, but alas the law does not allow it.

Brooks2 response is totally uncalled for. I propose that there should be bldgs. banning all children and you must have a dog or two or three. Downtown1234, bravo!
No matter what anyone says, if you are not a dog lover or owner you will never understand the bond between a canine and its owner. I rest my case.

huh? so a parent does not have a bond with his/her child? I have a dog and no children yet. I find it completely absurd for anyone to say that children should be banned south of any street. And I find pet owners annoying when they think every one has to love their dog just because they do. Especially when they give you a disgusting look because you won't pet their smelly, thirsty beast. Don't get me wrong, I love children and pets, Just because I love my dog doesn't mean everyone else has to. So show some respect for other human beings and don't force your pet on others. We do live in civil society. If you want to live in a civil place respect others. BertaNY you sound like an very ugly annoying pet owner, probably why you have no kids

I'm confused, is BertaNY also one of the other people here on this thread?

downtown1234:"I have no problems with buildings that don't allow pets - I would never live in one."

Do you realize that changes from time to time? It's not uncommon that a building which allows dogs will decide to ban them and a building that doesn't allow dogs will suddenly find them acceptable. It's rarely fixed in stone, particularly in a down market, buildings will try to increase the pool of purchasers by allowing pets.

Of course most restrict the size, weight, breed, will require them to travel on the service elevators, will require a money deposit by the owner in case the dog, bites, distrubs or leaves a deposit on the carpeting; if you know what I mean.

RealEstateNY - While I have no doubt you are right and that there are buildings that do, I have never heard of a specific building that requires pets to travel in service elevators (until I read the article above) or have owners pay a deposit. Although I don't have any specific knowledge of it, I suspect most of those buildings are stuffy old coops and I wouldn't want to live there to begin with. I much prefer condos.

As for weight and size restrictions, I suspect that is mostly a coop rule as well - my experience is mostly with condos in lower manhattan and I don't recall it being an issue in the ones I looked at.

Re: you will never understand the bond between a canine and its owner.

You feed it. It makes nice so you'll feed it again. And it's been selectively bred to push your buttons. Don't read too much into it.

downtown: "I suspect most of those buildings are stuffy old coops"

The original story related to a CONDO!

RealEstateNY - Fine; I didn't say I knew what every condo and coop in NYC does re: pets. In fact, I said "most" of the buildings with those types of restrictions are stuffy old coops. Just b/c the original one was a condo, doesn't mean the general statement is not true. My experience is that condos, especially those built in the last 10-15 years and in lower manhattan generally do not have significant restrictions on pets. I'm making a general statement - not saying it applies in all cases or that there are not exceptions.

BertaNY has come up with the possible but not likely to happen solution to deityjewels' problem with finding a place in Manhattan that will rent to an owner of three big dogs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-nycha-worker-face-severely-torn-pit-bulls-article-1.2619465
EXCLUSIVE: NYCHA worker’s face severely torn up by pit bulls who mauled him as he tried to collect late rent from Bronx tenant