MATTER OF NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. HOBLOCK, JR.

Decision Date07 March 2000
Citation270 A.D.2d 31,704 N.Y.S.2d 52
PartiesIn the Matter of NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL J. HOBLOCK, JR., et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

In this proceeding, petitioner New York Racing Association (NYRA) sought to vacate an order of respondent New York State Racing and Wagering Board that permitted respondent OTB to transmit, in-home over the Crosswalks cable network channel, live-call broadcasts (audio only) and a delayed video replay of races run at out-of-State tracks. NYRA complained that OTB was accepting telephone wagers on these races at a time when it was conducting thoroughbred racing at Belmont Park and therefore exceeded the authority granted to it by section 1002 of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law. It is NYRA's position that during any period when in-State thoroughbred racing is being conducted, the statute permits wagering only where the out-of-State race is deemed to be "of special interest" or wagers are accepted "with NYRA's consent" (citing Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 523 [6] [a]). Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that this provision should be read to limit such wagering as is authorized on out-of-State races by article X of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law.

We note that article X was enacted in 1984 for the stated purpose of allowing, on an experimental basis, the simulcasting of horse races and pari-mutuel betting thereon with the intent to promote the growth of the racing industry and generate additional revenues, both for the industry and government. To this end, the Legislature added provisions that permit telephone wagering (§ 1012) and the daily simulcasting and wagering, at OTB branch offices and simulcasting facilities, of up to two races conducted at out-of-State thoroughbred tracks (§ 1017). Both provisions are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2002. It is clear that a facility may accept wagers irrespective of whether it provides a simulcast; as provided by section 1017 (1) (e), nothing in that section is to be construed "to prohibit the acceptance of wagers on races conducted at out-of-state tracks without the display of the live simulcast signal if authorized under any other provision of this chapter" (emphasis added). Section 1012 authorizes in-home wagering on any races "offered" by OTB and the maintenance of "telephone betting accounts."

This Court discerns nothing in these sections that addresses the issue before us, which is whether the Board may direct OTB to provide some variation of in-home simulcasting of out-of-State races and permit OTB to accept telephone wagers on the outcome. The governing provision is Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 1003, which states, in subdivision (1) (a): "Except as provided herein the board shall not approve any application to conduct simulcasting into individual or group residences, homes or common living areas for the purposes of or in connection with pari-mutuel wagering. The board may approve experiments involving simulcasting into private residences to be conducted jointly by regional off-track betting corporations and a non-profit racing association, a thoroughbred racing corporation or association or a harness racing corporation or association provided (i) the simulcasting consists only of those races on which pari-mutuel betting is authorized for each of the contracting off-track betting corporations * * * Any agreement authorizing an in-home simulcasting experiment * * * may, and all its terms, be extended until June thirtieth, two thousand two, provided however, that any party to such agreement may elect to terminate such agreement upon conveying written notice * * * Any party...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Fanduel, Inc., INDEX NO. 453056/15
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 11 Diciembre 2015
    ...gambling should not be extended by implication beyond what is specified by the Legislature (New York Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Hoblock, 270 A.D. 2d 31, 704 N.Y.S .2d 52 [1st Dept., 2000]). The definition of "gambling" is found in the Penal Law §225.00 [2], which defines gambling as when a perso......
  • Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 2 Mayo 2002
    ...disfavoring gambling (see, Ramesar v State of New York, 224 A.D.2d 757, 759, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 811; accord, Matter of New York Racing Assn. v Hoblock, 270 A.D.2d 31, 33-34). Obviously recognizing that its defense to plaintiffs' separation of powers claim is seriously undermined by New Yor......
  • CMRC CORPORATION, LTD. v. State of New York
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 7 Marzo 2000
    ... ... the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted in Matter of Hicksville Props. v Board of Assessors (116 AD2d 717, ... of a claimant's damages upon condemnation (Gerosa Inc. v State of New York, 180 AD2d 552, 553). Also, as the ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT