What's happening
This bill allows racetrack licensees ejected or denied access to remain until their appeal is heard, and sets new hearing procedures.
Why it matters
Strengthens due process for racetrack licensees. By allowing ejected or denied licensees to remain on racetrack grounds until their appeal is decided, the bill ensures individuals are not penalized before a fair hearing, which helps prevent wrongful or arbitrary exclusions.
Shifts burden of proof to racetrack operators. The new language requires corporations or associations seeking to eject or deny access to a licensee to prove that the individual’s presence is genuinely detrimental to racing or the orderly conduct of events, making it harder to exclude licensees without strong justification.
Clarifies and formalizes hearing procedures. The bill establishes clear timelines and requirements for hearings, mandates written records and decisions, and guarantees representation, which increases transparency and consistency in how disputes are handled.
Provides judicial oversight. By explicitly allowing commission decisions regarding ejectments or denials to be reviewed by the state supreme court, the bill reinforces external checks and balances, offering licensees additional recourse if they believe a decision was unjust.
Albany, before your first meeting.
Every bill that moved yesterday, summarized in a sentence and ranked by impact. The Albany Scorecard follows on Sundays.
Free. Unsubscribe in one click. Want alerts on specific bills? Create an account.
Who cares
Headline styles
Let Ejected Racetrack Workers Appeal
Plain English, a few words. Used as the page title.
Sponsors
No co-sponsors yet.
History
- Referred to racing, gaming and wagering
- Referred to racing, gaming and wagering
Companion bill
The same bill in the other chamber. A bill becomes law when one version passes both houses and the governor signs it, so either number can carry it.
Fair Hearings for Racetrack Bans
In Assembly Committee · Racing And Wagering · Sponsor J. Gary Pretlow
Full text
2 pagesUnderlined is new[Struck] is removedOfficial text on nysenate.gov ↗
STATE OF NEW YORK
4604
2017-2018 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
February 21, 2017
Introduced by Sen. COMRIE -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Racing, Gaming and Wagering
AN ACT to amend the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law, in relation to commission hearings of racetrack ejectments and denials of access of commission licensees
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 321 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law is amended to read as follows:
§ 321. Hearing of refusal or revocation of license or ejectment or denial of access of licensee in good standing. If the state [racing and wagering board] gaming commission shall refuse to grant a license applied for under sections two hundred twenty-two through seven hundred five of this chapter, or shall revoke or suspend such a license granted by it, or shall impose a monetary fine upon a participant in harness racing, or any corporation or association created under or subject to the provisions of this chapter licensed to conduct pari-mutuel harness meets shall eject or deny access to a licensee from the grounds of and/or participation in a pari-mutuel harness meet, the applicant or licensee or party fined may demand, within ten days after notice of the said act of the [board] commission, corporation or association, a hearing before the [board] commission and the [board] commission shall give prompt notice of a time and place for such hearing at which the [board] commission will hear such applicant or licensee or party fined in reference thereto. Pending such hearing and final determination thereon, the action of the [board] commission in refusing to grant or in revoking or suspending a license or in imposing a monetary fine shall remain in full force and effect, but a licensee ejected or denied access shall be permitted access to the grounds of and/or participation in a pari-mutuel harness meet pending final determination by the commission on his or her
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD00348-01-7
S. 4604 2
appeal for a hearing. The [board] commission may continue such hearing from time to time for the convenience of any of the parties. Any of the parties affected by such hearing may be represented by counsel, and the [board] commission may be represented by the attorney general, a deputy attorney general or its counsel. In the conduct of such hearing the [board] commission shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but all evidence offered before the [board] commission shall be reduced to writing, and such evidence together with the exhibits, if any, and the findings of the [board] commission, shall be permanently preserved and shall constitute the record of the [board] commission in such case. In connection with such hearing, each member of the [board] commission shall have the power to administer oaths and examine witnesses, and may issue subpoenas to compel attendance of witnesses, and the production of all material and relevant reports, books, papers, documents, correspondence and other evidence. The [board] commission may, if occasion shall require, by order, refer to one or more of its members or officers, the duty of taking testimony in such matter, and to report thereon to the [board] commission, but no determination shall be made therein except by the [board] commission. Within thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing, the [board] commission shall make a final order in writing, setting forth the reasons for the action taken by it and a copy thereof shall be served on such applicant or licensee or party fined, as the case may be. In the case of an ejectment or denial of access of a licensee, the respective corporation or association shall have the burden of proof to establish that the presence and participation of the licensee is detrimental to the best interests of racing or to the orderly conduct of a race meet. The action of the [board] commission in refusing to grant a license or in revoking or suspending a license or in imposing a monetary fine, or affirming, modifying or reversing the ejectment or denial of access of a licensee, shall be reviewable in the supreme court in the manner provided by the provisions of article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.
§ 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
Reflowed for reading: line numbers and page breaks removed. Cite the official text.
Sponsor's memo
Title of bill
An act to amend the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law, in relation to commission hearings of racetrack ejectments and denials of access of commission licensees
Purpose
This legislation creates a due process structure at the New York Gaming Commission to provide horse racing licensees (drivers, trainers, horsemen, etc.) who have been barred or ejected from a participating licensed New York State race track with an administrative hearing. New York State currently has no regulatory structure in place to prevent private racetrack owners from arbitrarily denying licensees in good standing from participating in pari-mutuel racing at their state-licensed tracks and/or racinos. This legislation would simply mirror provisions in other racing states in which the state's racing Commission can conduct an independent, objective administrative hearing on the ejection or barring of racing licensees in good standing.
Summary of provisions
Section 321 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law is amended to provide any licensee in good standing barred or ejected from a licensed New York State racing facility with an administrative hearing conducted by the New York Gaming Commission.
Read the full memo (659 words)
Justification
Private racetrack operators in New York State can currently exclude for no reason whatsoever individuals possessing a state-issued occupational license from plying their trade at that facility. And despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has since determined that harness horse trainers and drivers possess a recognized property interest in their licenses sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause in the event of suspension or revocation by the state, the right to a similar hearing on exclusion of a licensee in good standing by private track owners has never been legislatively addressed.
In light of numerous instances of legally licensed horsemen, drivers or trainers being barred or ejected by track owners with absolutely no explanation or legal justification (including a documented case in which a driver was barred for being "disloyal" to a track owner by racing elsewhere), the creation of a new, objective due process hearing structure at the New York Gaming Commission is critically important to ensuring that New York racing is conducted fairly and honestly. New York lags behind competing racing states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, who have had legally- mandated hearing processes in place for years. The West Virginia Racing Commission justified the need for such due process in a legal brief as follows (in a case that legally upheld the hearing process):
Who gets to race is at the core of the Commission's regulatory function. In reviewing ejectment appeals from its permit holders, the Racing Commission is not deciding whether the track serves filet mignon or prime rib in the dining room or whether it hires a particular accounting firm to do its books. Matters like these may be the internal business affairs of the track. But, whether someone who holds a permit gets to come on to the track to ride horses is, fundamentally, the Racing Commission's business. Having a permit to engage in a racing-related occupation is not the same as having a law license or a medical license or a license to practice dentistry. A lawyer or a doctor or a dentist can open a professional practice on
any street corner in the State...They are not dependent upon the good graces of another to engage in their trades.
This legislation does nothing more than reinforce the statutorily granted right and obligation of the New York Gaming Commission to regulate racing in this state in the fairest and most transparent manner possible.
Legislative history
2015-16: S.5836/A.6246: Referred to Racing, Gaming Wagering/Passed Assembly.
Fiscal implications
The Gaming Commission already has a hearings process established. This legislation could potentially add a handful of additional hearings to the already existing hearings process but the cost is expected to be minimal.
Effective date
This act shall take effect immediately after it is enacted and becomes law.
Summaries, headlines and scores are AI-generated from the official bill text. How we score bills. Source: NYS Open Legislation.