Warner v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board

126 A.D.2d 956, 511 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42064
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 23, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 956 (Warner v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board) 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
Warner v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board, 126 A.D.2d 956, 511 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Although we find substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination, our decision is without prejudice to any future application by petitioner. On a previous appeal we found substantial evidence to support a determination that petitioner acquiesced in a race-fixing scheme by intentionally driving his horse, White Spirit, in such a manner as to prevent it from finishing first, second or third. Although this [957]*957was serious misconduct which violates a Board rule (9 NYCRR 4117.4 [n]) and justifies the determination herein (Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 309 [1]), there was no evidence that petitioner benefited financially from the scheme in which he was a relatively minor character (see, Gleason v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 98 AD2d 964; see also, Matter of Swift v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 100 AD2d 746). In our view, petitioner should be given an opportunity for reconsideration. It appears from the material submitted by petitioner that he has demonstrated a life-long interest in horses and farming, and his livelihood is threatened by respondent’s refusal to license him. "[Pjublic policy suggests that the discretion vested in an administrative agency to grant a license be consonant with the policy of the State to assist in rehabilitation, and to avoid discrimination in employment against rehabilitated persons” (Matter of Cantor v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 73 AD2d 544). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, J.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Related

Kramer v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board
153 A.D.2d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Warner v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board, Division of Harness Racing
143 A.D.2d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 A.D.2d 956, 511 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warner-v-new-york-state-racing-wagering-board-nyappdiv-1987.