Barrington Fair Ass'n, Inc. v. State Racing Com'n

• Decision Date: 15 June 1989
• Docket Number: No. 88-P-173,88-P-173
• Parties: BARRINGTON FAIR ASSOCIATION, INC. v. STATE RACING COMMISSION.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 554

539 N.E.2d 554

27 Mass.App.Ct. 1159

BARRINGTON FAIR ASSOCIATION, INC. v. STATE RACING COMMISSION.

No. 88-P-173.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Berkshire.

Argued Feb. 17, 1989.

Decided June 15, 1989.

Ira H. Zaleznik, Boston, for plaintiff.

Alice E. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before PERRETTA, KAPLAN and KASS, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

For purposes of testing whether substantial evidence supported the decision of the State Racing Commission to deny a horse racing license to Barrington Fair Association, Inc. (the "applicant"), it is necessary to consider only two of the grounds put forth by the commission: 1) the applicant was a front for persons who wished to remain unknown; and 2) the applicant's main purpose was not the encouragement of agriculture. The applicant had applied for a license to conduct horse races on ten days in September, 1987, at the Great Barrington Country Fair.

That fair had a long history--it began in 1841--but had fallen on hard times in the early 1980's. There had been a bankruptcy proceeding, out of which ownership of the fair grounds (land and buildings) devolved upon Great Barrington Country Fair, Inc. (the "land owner"), a newly organized Massachusetts business corporation. The applicant was organized as a nonprofit corporation, conformably with G.L. c. 180. A principal figure in the land owner was a Michael Abdalla, who also played a significant management role in the applicant.

After the racing commission issued its decision denying the license, the applicant sought judicial review under G.L. c. 30A, § 14. A judge of the Superior Court concluded that sufficient evidence had been brought before the racing commission to warrant its subsidiary findings which, in turn, supported the commission's decision. The applicant appealed, claiming that the commission decision distorted the record so as to reach, in arbitrary fashion, a predetermined result.

1. Mootness. Whether the applicant was entitled to a license in 1987 is now a moot question. Some of the grounds which the commission gave for denying the license, e.g., incompleteness of the application, are not likely to recur. The matter of the inherent inappropriateness of the applicant to conduct a racing meet at an agricultural fair is, however, capable of repetition, yet likely to evade review, since, in normal circumstances, the racing dates applied for will have come and gone before the process of judicial review has worked to a conclusion. We, therefore, consider that aspect of the case. See Karchmar v. Worcester, 364 Mass. 124, 136, 301 N.E.2d 570 (1973); Taunton Greyhound Assn. v. State Racing Commn., 10 Mass.App.Ct. 297, 298-299, 407 N.E.2d 371 (1980); Umina v. Malbica, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 351, 354, 538 N.E.2d 53 (1989).

2. Legal and factual support in the record for denial of a license. The applicant bears the burden of establishing that there was no substantial evidence to support the commission's findings and conclusions. If there came before the commission evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to support the commission's decision, that decision, assuming it rests on a lawful footing, may stand. New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 466, 420 N.E.2d 298 (1981); Taunton Greyhound Assoc. v. State Racing Commn., 10 Mass.App.Ct. at 299, 407 N.E.2d 371.

(a) Front for persons unknown. When the statutory scheme which regulates horse racing in Massachusetts was substantially amended in 1978, instilling public confidence in the integrity of the sport was declared an objective of the revisions. St.1978, c. 494, § 1. See Catrone v. State Racing Commn., 17 Mass.App.Ct. 484, 490, 459 N.E.2d 474 (1984); Perez v. State Racing Commn., 23 Mass.App.Ct. 268, 273, 501 N.E.2d 1169 (1986). A sport so entwined with gambling as horse racing is peculiarly susceptible to corruption and, for that reason, has long been closely regulated. Colella v. State Racing Commn., 360 Mass. 152, 159, 274 N.E.2d 331 (1971). In considering whether to issue a license to a corporate applicant, the commission may reasonably be interested in the reputations for honest dealing, gambling history, and police records of the corporation's officers, directors, and stockholders. See ...