Opinion ID: 786183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Perez's Administrative Appeal

Text: 7 After receiving the penalty notice, Perez appealed and was granted an administrative hearing by the Racing Board. See N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 9, § 4022.14 (2000) (setting forth appeal procedures). At the hearing, which was held on January 18, 2001, the Executive Director and Designated Hearing Officer rejected Perez's arguments predicated on the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Hearing Officer found that the Stewards' meeting was a non-public forum for the purpose of investigating a racing-related complaint and that, therefore, Perez's conduct could be regulated as long as the restrictions were not intended to suppress an expression that differed from the public officials' view. 8 With respect to the nature of Perez's complaint that Lakow was manipulating the size of the field to benefit certain owners, the Hearing Officer indicated that, if valid, [the complaint] could affect the integrity of the sport. He found, however, that Perez's disruption of the meeting prevented the Stewards from investigating these serious allegations thoroughly. As a result, the Hearing Officer concluded that section 4022.13 was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Perez's conduct, because [Perez's] actions were detrimental to the best interests of racing generally, in that he demonstrated disrespect to the stewards and disrupted the stewards' meeting,... ma[king] further investigation into his complaint impossible. Finally, the Hearing Officer recommended reducing Perez's fine from $3,000 to $1,000. 9 Although the Racing Board upheld the Hearing Officer's other findings, it did not accept his recommendation with respect to the amount of the fine. Instead, the Board affirmed the Stewards' imposition of a $3,000 fine, permitting Perez to pay a reduced fine ($1,250) only if he expressed remorse in an apology to the Stewards.