Judges

Attorneys and Parties

Brief Summary

Background

Capensis, a horse trained by petitioner, finished sixth at Saratoga on July 30, 2022. Postrace plasma testing showed phenylbutazone at 1.56 mcg/ml (split-sample: 1.8 mcg/ml), above the 0.3 mcg/ml threshold. The state steward issued a 14‑day suspension and $2,000 fine; the Hearing Officer sustained the charge and recommended suspension, fine, and disqualification, which the Commission adopted. Petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding [special proceeding to challenge administrative determinations] challenging the sufficiency and admissibility of the proof and other issues; the matter was transferred to the Appellate Division under CPLR 7804(g) [transfer to the Appellate Division when a substantial evidence question is raised]. Petitioner did not dispute chain of custody but objected that the Commission proved its case only through letters from the New York and California laboratories, introduced through a witness who neither performed the testing nor reviewed the underlying data. Although administrative records need not be accompanied by testimony (State Administrative Procedure Act § 306 [rule permitting administrative agencies to receive evidence without strict adherence to formal rules]), petitioner argued that a proper foundation for reliability was still required.

Lower Court Decision

After a hearing, the Hearing Officer found petitioner violated the equine drug threshold rule based on the laboratory letters, recommended a 14‑day suspension, $2,000 fine, and disqualification of Capensis; the Commission adopted those findings and penalties.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Court held that, although petitioner did not preserve a direct challenge to testing methodology, the Commission’s reliance solely on hearsay lab letters—one lacking the method used and both lacking any indication of the tests’ reliability or general acceptance—failed to lay a proper foundation and did not constitute substantial evidence. Because the agency bears the initial burden to show that a properly conducted test yielded a positive finding, proceeding on this record rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair. The Court annulled the determination and remitted for a new hearing. Petitioner’s separate argument that the rule was invalid for lack of a State Administrative Procedure Act § 202(5) [publication of notice of adoption in the State Register] filing was deemed unpreserved, and his remaining claims (bias, adverse inference, penalty) were rendered academic.

Legal Significance

In New York administrative racing cases, hearsay can constitute substantial evidence, but laboratory letters alone—without foundational proof of the testing method’s reliability and general acceptance—are insufficient to establish a drug-threshold violation. Agencies must present competent, probative evidence demonstrating that a properly conducted, reliable test yielded the overage; chain of custody and result statements, standing alone, will not satisfy the burden.