Matter of Tappis v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Harness Racing Div.

New York Court of Appeals

Matter of Tappis v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Harness Racing Div.

331 N.E.2d 697, 36 N.Y.2d 862, 370 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1907

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 331 N.E.2d 697 (Matter of Tappis v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Harness Racing Div.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Tappis v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Harness Racing Div., 331 N.E.2d 697, 36 N.Y.2d 862, 370 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1907 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, reinstate the determination of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board (Board) and hold that the statutory scheme for imposing sanctions by the Board, adopted pursuant to section 37 of chapter 254 of the Laws of 1940, as amended, does not offend any constitutional right. The record reveals substantial evidence to sustain the determination that petitioner violated an established Board rule (9 NYCRR 4104.10 [formerly 19 NYCRR 84.10]) in that he, the owner of a competing horse programmed to race the same day, was found conversing with the trainer of another horse, in the paddock area just prior to the race. The cited rule specifically prohibits this activity and, in consequence thereof, a sanction and fine were imposed by the racing steward whose decision was subsequently confirmed by the Board following a full hearing.

The Appellate Division did not disturb the factual finding, but based its annulment of the determination on its holding *864 that the penalty was imposed by the steward without a prior formal notice of charges and a hearing. Rule 101.5 (9 NYCRR 4121.5) of the Board provides that the decision of the steward is subject to full review by the Board within 10 days following notice of the steward’s decision, all of which was here followed and resulted in its confirmation by the Board.

The compelling and substantial State interest involved in maintaining discipline among trainers and owners in the paddock area of a racetrack, so as to preclude the appearance or the fact of impropriety, justifies on-the-spot sanctions and penalties in advance of hearings, and the procedure here followed involved no infringement of petitioner’s constitutional rights and complied sufficiently with the requirements of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. (Matter of Sanford v Rockefeller, 35 NY2d 547; Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of Syracuse, 35 NY2d 534; cf. Arnett v Kennedy, 416 US 134.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and appellant’s determination reinstated in a memorandum.

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

Memorandum. We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, reinstate the determination of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board (Board) and hold that the statutory scheme for imposing sanctions by the Board, adopted pursuant to section 37 of chapter 254 of the Laws of 1940, as amended, does not offend any constitutional right. The record reveals substantial evidence to sustain the determination that petitioner violated an established Board rule (9 NYCRR 4104.10 [formerly 19 NYCRR 84.10]) in that he, the owner of a competing horse programmed to race the same day, was found conversing with the trainer of another horse, in the paddock area just prior to the race. The cited rule specifically prohibits this activity and, in consequence thereof, a sanction and fine were imposed by the racing steward whose decision was subsequently confirmed by the Board following a full hearing.

The Appellate Division did not disturb the factual finding, but based its annulment of the determination on its holding *864 that the penalty was imposed by the steward without a prior formal notice of charges and a hearing. Rule 101.5 (9 NYCRR 4121.5) of the Board provides that the decision of the steward is subject to full review by the Board within 10 days following notice of the steward’s decision, all of which was here followed and resulted in its confirmation by the Board.

The compelling and substantial State interest involved in maintaining discipline among trainers and owners in the paddock area of a racetrack, so as to preclude the appearance or the fact of impropriety, justifies on-the-spot sanctions and penalties in advance of hearings, and the procedure here followed involved no infringement of petitioner’s constitutional rights and complied sufficiently with the requirements of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. (Matter of Sanford v Rockefeller, 35 NY2d 547; Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of Syracuse, 35 NY2d 534; cf. Arnett v Kennedy, 416 US 134.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and appellant’s determination reinstated in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 N.E.2d 697, 36 N.Y.2d 862, 370 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tappis-v-new-york-state-racing-wagering-bd-harness-racing-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack