In Scott v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board , Shawn Scott challenged a New York State Racing and Wagering Board decision which denied him a track management license.
After filing his Article 78 proceeding with the New York County Supreme Court, the case was transferred -- in accordance with CPLR 7804(g) -- to the Appellate Division, First Department, where the Board's decision was confirmed.*
Apparently, Scott's financial disclosure forms contained several misstatements. And, the Board's hearing officer found that Scott had deliberately misrepresented some of his financial holdings. The AD1 believed that those findings were entitled to considerable deference and that "[r]equiring prospective track managers to demonstrate accurate keeping of records is justified in the sport of horse racing on which betting is legal and where there is potential for illegality."
According to the AD1, Scott's failure to accurately represent his financial status was a sound basis upon which to determine that he "lack[ed] the experience, character and general fitness" to maintain a managerial role in horse racing or related activities, and, that his involvement in such activities "would be inconsistent with the public interest … or with the best interests of racing generally."
While Scott alleged that the Board was biased and that he was the victim of selective enforcement of the governing rules, the AD1 was unsympathetic to those claims and could find no evidence in the record which supported his allegations.
... And he's off!
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Scott v. New York State Racing and Wagering Board
---------------------------
*CPLR 7804(g) provides as follows:
Hearing and determination; transfer to appellate division. Where the substantial evidence issue specified in question four of section 7803 is not raised, the court in which the proceeding is commenced shall itself dispose of the issues in the proceeding. Where such an issue is raised, the court shall first dispose of such other objections as could terminate the proceeding, including but not limited to lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations and res judicata, without reaching the substantial evidence issue. If the determination of the other objections does not terminate the proceeding, the court shall make an order directing that it be transferred for disposition to a term of the appellate division held within the judicial department embracing the county in which the proceeding was commenced. When the proceeding comes before it, whether by appeal or transfer, the appellate division shall dispose of all issues in the proceeding, or, if the papers are insufficient, it may remit the proceeding.