Equine Practitioners Ass'n, Inc. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Anobile v. Pelligrino (2d Cir. 2002)
- Anobile v. Pelligrino (2d Cir. 2002)
- Anobile v. Pelligrino (2d Cir. 2002)
- Anobile v. Pelligrino (2d Cir. 2002)
- Anobile v. Pelligrino (2d Cir. 2001)
- Anobile v. Pelligrino (2d Cir. 2001)
- Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki (N.Y. 2003)
- The Cloister East, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Ford v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Ford v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Pedersen v. Racing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Zito v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.