Equine Practitioners Ass'n, Inc. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.

New York Court of Appeals

Equine Practitioners Ass'n, Inc. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.

488 N.E.2d 831, 66 N.Y.2d 786, 497 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17927

New York Court of Appeals·Decided November 12, 1985·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein, and, as so modified, affirmed.

We reject plaintiffs challenge to the rules promulgated by defendant which govern the substances which may be administered to a horse within various time periods preceding a race. We agree with the Appellate Division, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Sidney Asch (105 AD2d 215), that these rules are rationally related to, and authorized by, the statutory provisions they implement, and thus we affirm the declaration as to their validity. We do not reach plaintiffs challenge to those rules which authorize warrantless searches of all licensees anywhere on racetrack premises. In view of the concession by defendant that these rules do not apply to licensed veterinarians, who are exempt from the proscriptions which such searches are intended to enforce, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge, on the merits, the rules authorizing warrantless searches. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Appellate Division by deleting the declaration insofar as it relates to the rules as to warrantless searches.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Kaye and Titone concur; Judges Simons and Alexander taking no part.

Order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein, and, as so modified, affirmed.

We reject plaintiffs challenge to the rules promulgated by defendant which govern the substances which may be administered to a horse within various time periods preceding a race. We agree with the Appellate Division, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Sidney Asch (105 AD2d 215), that these rules are rationally related to, and authorized by, the statutory provisions they implement, and thus we affirm the declaration as to their validity. We do not reach plaintiffs challenge to those rules which authorize warrantless searches of all licensees anywhere on racetrack premises. In view of the concession by defendant that these rules do not apply to licensed veterinarians, who are exempt from the proscriptions which such searches are intended to enforce, plaintiff lacks standing to challenge, on the merits, the rules authorizing warrantless searches. Accordingly, we modify the order of the Appellate Division by deleting the declaration insofar as it relates to the rules as to warrantless searches.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Kaye and Titone concur; Judges Simons and Alexander taking no part.

Order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

Equine Practitioners Ass'n, Inc. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 488 N.E.2d 831, 66 N.Y.2d 786, 497 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17927 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

488 N.E.2d 831 (Equine Practitioners Ass'n, Inc. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related