Despite visit to animal shelter, judge won’t jail Brick women accused of hoarding pets

TOMS RIVER - A judge Tuesday ruled two women accused of hoarding 180 animals at their Brick home violated a court order by visiting a Stafford animal shelter earlier this month, but he did not send them back to jail for the infraction.

Superior Court Judge Guy P. Ryan, in denying a request by the state to incarcerate Aimee Lonczak and Michele Nycz, said prosecutors were mistaken about the most serious allegation against the two women - that they also violated an order barring them from contact with Lonczak’s 16-year-old daughter, the victim of alleged child endangerment, when they showed up at the animal shelter Jan. 19 looking for dogs that had been taken from them.

Prosecutors initially alleged the 16-year-old went with Lonczak, 49, and Nycz, 48, to the animal shelter that day. But Alexander Becker, an assistant Ocean County prosecutor, said at a hearing Tuesday that it turned out to be an older daughter not subject to any court order that had accompanied the two women to the animal shelter that day.

Ryan cited that misidentification and an “ambiguous’’ court order issued by another judge on Jan. 10 in his decision to allow Lonczak and Nycz to remain free to await trial on charges of animal cruelty and child endangerment.

The two women were arrested and jailed Dec. 3, and 180 animals were taken from their Arrowhead Park Drive home, when a humane law enforcement officer, acting on a tip, found 135 dogs and 45 cats living in what authorities have described as deplorable conditions, with many of them encrusted in feces. Authorities also retrieved two dead puppies from the premises.

Superior Court Judge Wendel E. Daniels ordered the women released from jail at a hearing Dec. 8, at which he barred them from having any contact with animals while they are awaiting trial and also ordered them to have no contact with Lonczak’s 16-year-old daughter without permission from the state Department of Children and Families.

Becker Tuesday sought to revoke the release of Lonczak and Nycz, alleging they showed up at the Ocean County Health Department’s animal shelter in Stafford on Jan. 19 with Lonczak’s daughter and attempted to “bully’’ the manager into giving them back their dogs.

“These defendants showed up to the Stafford animal shelter and demanded that their dogs be returned to them,’’ Becker said.

When the bullying didn’t work, they claimed to have a court order saying the animals could be returned to them, when no such order existed, Becker alleged.

“This was in intentional disregard for Judge Daniel’s order,’’ Becker said.

Lonczak’s attorney, Glenn Kassman, offered an impassioned explanation, saying that Superior Court Judge Linda Baxter on Jan 10 issued an order placing a hold on the adoption of Lonzczak’s five personal dogs - Minnie, Lopez, Igor, Muffin and Fletcher. Baxter said the defendants could choose someone to foster the dogs while a further hearing was pending on their ownership, Kassman said. Lonczak and Nycz went to the shelter with that order nine days later, looking for the dogs while Lonczak’s cousin, who offered to shelter them, waited outside, Kassman said.

Kassman called it a “flat-out lie’’ that Lonczak and Nycz went to the shelter and demanded that their animals be returned to them.

Nycz’s attorney, Andrew Hannwacker, said he had Baxter’s order amended to also include his client’s two personal dogs, Lily and Verscace.

“Going to the shelter with the person who was going to foster the dogs, that’s not contact with animals,’’ Hannwacker said. “There’s no violation here at all.’’

Ryan said authorities never interviewed the shelter manager about what happened that day and instead relied on a Brick police officer’s report alleging the defendants tried to bully the manager.

“What I have is a series of hearsay information about what happened at the shelter,’’ Ryan said.

Ryan called Baxter’s court order “ambiguous’’ in that it said the defendants were to assist in identifying the animals whose adoption they wanted placed on hold, without saying what that assistance was to be.

Ryan did find the two women violated Daniel’s order banning them from contact with animals while their criminal case is pending.

“It’s inconceivable to me that you can go to an animal shelter and not have contact wit animals,’’ he said.

But Ryan said the violation was not serious enough to warrant the defendant’s incarceration.

While allowing the women to remain free while awaiting trial, Ryan barred them from any visits to animal shelters or pet stores without the approval of the state.

This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: Brick women accused of hoarding pets won't be jailed again, said judge