Murdock v. American Horse Shows Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murdock v. American Horse Shows Ass'n

287 A.D.2d 364, 731 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 364 (Murdock v. American Horse Shows Ass'n) 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

Murdock v. American Horse Shows Ass'n, 287 A.D.2d 364, 731 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omanksy, J.), entered on or about December 15, 2000, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination requiring petitioner to return all trophies, ribbons, prizes and money awarded to her horse in the subject show and pay a $50 fee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A hearing pursuant to CPLR 7804 (h) was not required on the issue of respondent’s jurisdiction over an affiliate organization, the issue having been properly resolved in respondent’s favor by the article 78 court based on the plain language of respondent’s rules as interpreted by respondent’s voluntary members, experts in the subject area of sport competition (see, Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego Yacht Club, 76 NY2d 256, 266). Respondent’s determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Rensselaer Socy. of Engrs. v Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 260 AD2d 992, 993), and the article 78 court properly found no evidence to suggest that bias or conflict of interest, if any, affected the challenged outcome (see, Matter of Marin Constr. Corp. v Scatliffe, 271 AD2d 206; Matter of Mays v Goord, 245 AD2d 610, 612). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallaeh, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omanksy, J.), entered on or about December 15, 2000, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination requiring petitioner to return all trophies, ribbons, prizes and money awarded to her horse in the subject show and pay a $50 fee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A hearing pursuant to CPLR 7804 (h) was not required on the issue of respondent’s jurisdiction over an affiliate organization, the issue having been properly resolved in respondent’s favor by the article 78 court based on the plain language of respondent’s rules as interpreted by respondent’s voluntary members, experts in the subject area of sport competition (see, Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego Yacht Club, 76 NY2d 256, 266). Respondent’s determination was not arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Rensselaer Socy. of Engrs. v Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 260 AD2d 992, 993), and the article 78 court properly found no evidence to suggest that bias or conflict of interest, if any, affected the challenged outcome (see, Matter of Marin Constr. Corp. v Scatliffe, 271 AD2d 206; Matter of Mays v Goord, 245 AD2d 610, 612). We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallaeh, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 364, 731 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murdock-v-american-horse-shows-assn-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack