McGuire v. Hoblock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McGuire v. Hoblock

25 A.D.3d 500, 808 N.Y.S.2d 669

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 26, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 A.D.3d 500 (McGuire v. Hoblock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGuire v. Hoblock, 25 A.D.3d 500, 808 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent State Racing and Wagering Board, dated September 24, 2004, finding that petitioner veterinarian violated 9 NYCRR 4043.3 (d) and 4012.4 (c), and imposing a 180-day suspension and a $1,000 fine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jane S. Solomon, J.], entered February 25, 2005) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including, in particular, the eyewitness testimony of respondent’s investigator, supports the findings that petitioner attempted to administer a prohibited “milkshake” on the day of a race and did so without making reasonable inquiry whether the horse was scheduled to race that day. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s findings of credibility (see e.g. Matter of Sachs v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Div. of Harness Racing, 1 AD3d 768, 772 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004]). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (cf. Matter of Beckwith v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 219 AD2d 516 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent State Racing and Wagering Board, dated September 24, 2004, finding that petitioner veterinarian violated 9 NYCRR 4043.3 (d) and 4012.4 (c), and imposing a 180-day suspension and a $1,000 fine, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jane S. Solomon, J.], entered February 25, 2005) dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including, in particular, the eyewitness testimony of respondent’s investigator, supports the findings that petitioner attempted to administer a prohibited “milkshake” on the day of a race and did so without making reasonable inquiry whether the horse was scheduled to race that day. No basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s findings of credibility (see e.g. Matter of Sachs v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Div. of Harness Racing, 1 AD3d 768, 772 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 706 [2004]). The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness (cf. Matter of Beckwith v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 219 AD2d 516 [1995]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.3d 500, 808 N.Y.S.2d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcguire-v-hoblock-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack