In this case, the dog is a woman’s best friend, a Manhattan judge ruled.
Judge Geoffrey Wright said wealthy media executive Noah Szubski has to give up 5-year-old Doberman Cash to his ex- girlfriend, celebrity daughter Chelsea Conrad.
Wright admitted he’s no “dog whisperer” in his ruling, so he judged the case solely on ownership, and give the 60-pound pooch to Chelsea, whose dad is TV and movie star Robert Conrad.
“Neither side has access to a dog whisperer and there is no Administration for Pet Services to mirror the city agency that looks into the households of parents in disputes over the custody of children,” Wright said in his decision, revealed Wednesday, adding: “There is no hint here that Miss Conrad cannot or will not be able to take adequate care of Cash . . . Custody is herby awarded to her.”
Conrad has argued that she has owned Cash since her mom gave him to her, and thus the animal should be hers.
But Szubski battled her canine custody claims, because the pair shared custody of the pooch after their break-up last year.
That lead to a court battle that got as heated at many child-custody cases, as Conrad argued that the only reason she even agreed to temporary shared custody is that she feared Szubski would assault her if she didn’t.
But the informal custody agreement broke down after Conrad walked in on the Mail Online executive in his underwear with a group of women at his Chelsea town house on Valentine’s Day.
The 28-year-old FIT student was “screaming” with joy when she learned of the ruling Tuesday night, said her attorney, Mia Poppe of the firm Shaw & Associates.
“My client has full custody, no strings attached. She can go on with her young happy life without the burden of Mr. Szubski and his temper,” Poppe said.
In his ruling, Wright said that he was not convinced by Szubski’s claims that the animal was thrilled to see him at a court-ordered reunion last spring.
“When Cash saw me . . . she got very excited, wagging her tail,” said Szubski, 32.
The judge said he didn’t buy Szubski’s pet psychology.
Wright was also unimpressed by Szubski’s argument that he could “lavish on Cash whatever it is a human being can conceive to purchase for a pet.”
Spoiling a dog is not an “appropriate standard” to determine custody, Wright sniffed.
Szubski’s lawyer did not return a call asking whether he planned to file an appeal.