Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Raymond ALLEN, Petitioner, v. Jerry BILINSKI, Sued as Jerry Bolinsky, Respondent.
Determination of respondent New York State Racing and Wagering Board, dated December 21, 1994, which suspended petitioner's trainer's license for a period of 60 days, and denied petitioner the privileges of the grounds at all harness tracks in New York State for the period of suspension, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order, Supreme Court, New York County [Stephen Crane, J.], entered September 21, 1995), is dismissed, without costs.
Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of trainer responsibility that arises under 9 NYCRR § 4120.4 when one of the horses under his care and custody tested positive for the presence of restricted drugs (9 NYCRR § 4120.2) directly following its participation in a race. Although petitioner claimed that a veterinarian administered the drugs without petitioner's knowledge or consent at the behest of the horse's owner, petitioner admitted that he regularly used the veterinarian's services. Therefore, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the veterinarian was not also an agent or employee of his as defined under the regulation. In addition, even assuming, arguendo, that the veterinarian was not the agent of petitioner, there clearly was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that petitioner failed to guard the horse so as to prevent “any person whether or not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer” from administering the drugs in question (9 NYCRR § 4120.4; see, Casse v. New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 70 N.Y.2d 589, 523 N.Y.S.2d 423, 517 N.E.2d 1309).
We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 27, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)