HORSE RACING

New York Supreme Court (2007) Drugs discovered in random barn searches result in suspension.

Pederson v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board

Drugs discovered in random barn searches result in suspension.  ADDED  XXXXX 2008

PEDERSON v. NEW YORK STATE RACING AND WAGERING BOARD

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York

2007 WL 4335676

Dec. 13, 2007

Summary of Opinion

Pederson, a licensed horse trainer, challenges the Board’s determination that of violation of certain drug rules which resulted in her suspension.  During a search that was part of a number of random barn searches conducted at several race tracks investigators discovered several vials of injectible medications in a refrigerator in Pederson’s barn which are used to treat horses.  Although Pederson claimed that the drugs belonged to a licensed veterinarian.  In subsequent questioning the veterinarian did not substantiate Pederson’s claims. 

Text of Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which, among other things, suspended petitioner's training license for 60 days.

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding which has been transferred to this Court (seeCPLR 7804[g] ), petitioner, a licensed horse trainer, challenges respondent's determination that she violated 9 NYCRR 4012.1 resulting in a suspension. Testimony at an administrative hearing established that, in the course of routine random barn searches at various race tracks on March 3, 2005, several vials of injectable drugs used to treat and immunize horses were retrieved from a refrigerator in a room inside petitioner's barn. Because petitioner was not a licensed veterinarian, her possession of these injectable drugs constituted a violation of 9 NYCRR 4012.1(a)(1) (see generally Equine Practitioners Assn. v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 105 A.D.2d 215, 217 [1984],mod66 N.Y.2d 786 [1985] ). While petitioner testified at the hearing that these items belonged to a licensed, full-time veterinarian who worked at the barn, such testimony was contradicted by the testimony of respondent's director of investigations. According to the director, upon questioning this particular veterinarian subsequent to the search, she denied that the substances belonged to her. To this end, we note that petitioner did not produce this veterinarian as a witness at the hearing to support her claim of non-ownership.

The investigator's testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support respondent's determination (see e.g. Matter of Mosher v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Div. of Harness Racing, 9 A.D.3d 570, 571 [2004] ). Petitioner's testimony in which she denied that the confiscated items actually belonged to her presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see e.g. Matter of Sachs v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., Div. of Harness Racing, 1 A.D.3d 768, 772 [2003],lv denied2 N.Y.3d 706 [2004];Matter of Vinci v. Corbisiero, 174 A.D.2d 893, 895 [1991] ). To the extent that the Hearing Officer, in reliance on a precise sequence of hearing testimony, may have mischaracterized petitioner's overall argument concerning the use and control of the room where the drugs were found, we are unpersuaded that any such mischaracterization warrants annulment of respondent's determination .

We reject each of petitioner's remaining arguments, particularly her constitutional challenge to the subject regulation and her claim that respondent failed to provide her with adequate notice of the charge against her.

Return to Top of This Page

Return to Top of Horse Racing Page