American Boxing and Athletic Association v. Chemung County Ymca

• Citation: 787 N.Y.S.2d 413,13 A.D.3d 842,2004 NY Slip Op 09344
• Decision Date: 16 December 2004
• Docket Number: 95427.
• Parties: AMERICAN BOXING AND ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. CHEMUNG COUNTY YMCA, Defendant, and NEW YORK STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

13 A.D.3d 842

787 N.Y.S.2d 413

2004 NY Slip Op 09344

AMERICAN BOXING AND ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. CHEMUNG COUNTY YMCA, Defendant, and NEW YORK STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION, Respondent.

95427.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

December 16, 2004.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (O'Shea, J.), entered May 7, 2003 in Chemung County, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of defendant New York State Athletic Commission for a permanent injunction.

CARDONA, P.J.

Plaintiff is a nonprofit corporation which promotes participation in amateur boxing tournaments such as "Toughman" competitions. After plaintiff entered into a rental agreement with defendant Chemung County YMCA for space to hold a Toughman contest on March 14 and 15, 2003, Hugo Spindola, the General Counsel to defendant New York State Athletic Commission,¹ discovered that neither plaintiff nor its sponsor, Adore Able Productions, Inc., were licensed boxing promoters in New York. In a letter dated March 13, 2003, Spindola informed the YMCA that plaintiff's contest was not sanctioned by the Commission. Spindola further noted that, "persons and/or corporations who directly or indirectly conduct a boxing match or exhibition without a license and/or sanctioning from the Commission shall be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties" (see McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY §§ 8916, 8933). On the same day, the YMCA issued a media release announcing the cancellation of the Toughman contest.

Plaintiff immediately moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the Commission from interfering with the scheduled contest. The petition filed with the application for a restraining order alleged, inter alia, that Toughman boxing events were exempt from Commission regulations because they were amateur contests within the meaning of McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 8931.² After a hearing, Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order permitting plaintiff to hold the March 14 and 15, 2003 contests as originally scheduled. Plaintiff thereafter went forward with the underlying action, serving notice that it was seeking a declaration that Toughman boxing matches are amateur events exempt from the Commission's regulations and also a permanent injunction prohibiting the Commission from interfering with Toughman events. The Commission cross-moved for an order dismissing plaintiff's application and granting a permanent injunction prohibiting plaintiff from conducting boxing events without first complying with applicable law and licensing requirements. Supreme Court granted the Commission's cross motion in its entirety and plaintiff appeals.

It is undisputed that the Commission is vested with the sole direction, management, control and jurisdiction over all boxing matches or exhibitions conducted within the State of New York (see McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 8906; 19 NYCRR 206.2). To obtain an exemption under McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 8931, a contest holder must come within one of the three categories of exceptions set forth therein. Since plaintiff is not a military or educational institution, it can only qualify under the remaining exception if it meets certain criteria such as demonstrating that its contests are conducted under the supervision of the U.S. Amateur Boxing Federation (now known as USA Boxing) and comply with USA Boxing's rules for amateur events. The record indicates that plaintiff does not so qualify. Therefore, plaintiff is subject to the rules of the Commission (see Matter of Robinson v Krulewitch, 18 Misc 2d 285, 287 [1959]; see also Matter of London Sporting Club v Helfand, 3 Misc 2d 431, 436 [1956], affd 6 AD2d 775 [1958]), and Supreme Court properly granted the Commission's cross motion for a permanent injunction.

Finally, assuming arguendo, that plaintiff has properly raised a challenge to the constitutionality of McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY § 8931, we find its arguments to be unpersuasive. Plaintiff contends that this statute is unconstitutional since it delegates authority to an outside corporation, i.e., USA Boxing, to determine who can be licensed to hold amateur boxing contests. This argument fails because the Legislature is clearly not delegating all its authority to USA...