You are here: / / Supreme Court’s Annulment of Regulation Permitting Out-Of-Competition D...

Supreme Court’s Annulment of Regulation Permitting Out-Of-Competition Drug Testing of Harness Racehorses Reversed

The Third Department reversed Supreme Court’s annulment of a regulation that permitted out-of-competition drug testing of harness racehorses pursuant to the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law.  In a lengthy decision, the Third Department went through each of Supreme Court’s findings, reversing all but one which annulled the portion of the regulation prohibiting all “protein and peptide-based drugs” because it conflicted with the permitted-use regulation. Matter of Ford v NYS Racing and Wagering Board, 514622, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF SOME OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT FOR THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT; THE MATTER WAS REMANDED FOR A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIOR NON-JURY TRIAL WHICH HAD BEEN HELD BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE AND REVERSED 3RD DEPT.
Family Court Did Not Adequately Consider the Factors Relevant to Mother’s Request for Unsupervised Visitation/Determination of Visitation Improperly Delegated to Father
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JUROR WAS A LONG-TERM FRIEND OF AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S CASE.
TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY ISSUED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A MAJOR SOLAR SYSTEM; DENIAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT CANNOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON COMMUNITY OPPOSITION (THIRD DEPT).
DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY PETITIONER WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND THE INTER-, INTRA-AGENCY COMMUNICATION EXEMPTIONS (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE VICTIM’S JAW WAS FRACTURED, THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW SECTION 10 (10); DEFENDANT’S ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ASSAULT THIRD (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Investment Tax Credit for Company which Delivered Natural Gas, as Opposed... Review and Evidence Standards in Small Claims Actions Explained