Opinion
September 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Parness, J.].
Substantial evidence, including, in particular, petitioner's admission that in order to save money, he would regularly bring his horses to races without a groom and thus leave them unattended at times, and at other times would pay hangers-on at the track to take his horses to the urine stall or the paddock to bathe them, supports respondent's determination that by reason of the presumption found in 9 NYCRR 4043.4, also known as the "trainer's responsibility rule", petitioner was responsible for the administration of dezocine, a potentially dangerous and unapproved drug, the use of which respondent strictly prohibits, to three of his horses within a week prior to the start of their respective races, in violation of 9 NYCRR 4120.2 (e) ( see, Matter of Mosher v New York State Racing Wagering Bd., 74 N.Y.2d 688). The penalty of three consecutive 60-day suspensions does not shock the conscience, and, contrary to petitioner's contention, is not inconsistent with other penalties imposed by respondent for different drug violations.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.