Federal Court Dismisses Dutrow Appeal

Trainer Rick Dutrow Jr. is running out of avenues to return to the sport any time soon as courts continue to uphold a 10-year suspension of his license levied in 2011 by a New York regulator.

In a decision filed this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed Dutrow's appeal in which he said his due process rights were violated because the regulator failed to follow lawful procedure. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeals decided that a determination by the Appellate Division that Dutrow was not denied a fair hearing addressed all of his due process concerns.

Dutrow, who had his license revoked for 10 years by the New York regulatory board, filed the suit against the New York State Racing and Wagering Board (predecessor to the Gaming Commission), John Sabini, who had served as chairman of the NYSRWB and RCI (as well as in other RCI roles); and NYSRWB members Daniel Hogan and Charles Diamond.

In the legal action, Dutrow, who trained Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I) and Preakness Stakes (gr. I) winner Big Brown  , alleged that the NYSRWB's decision to revoke his license violated his federal rights to due process. Much of his argument centered on potential conflicts of interest of Sabini because of his roles with the New York regulator and RCI.

In 2011 RCI president Ed Martin sent a letter to the New York State Racing and Wagering Board recommending it look at Dutrow's full record and "determine his suitability to continue his participation in horseracing." The NYSRWB ultimately revoked Dutrow's license for 10 years. 

In a July 29, 2014 ruling, U.S. District judge Sandra L. Townes said the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the suit and that it was a case for state courts except when shown that the plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated. This month judge Timothy C. Stanceu dismissed Dutrow's appeal of that decision.

In dismissing the appeal, Stanceu said Dutrow was attempting to re-litigate issues in district court that already had been determined.

"In sum, when the Appellate Divsision decided that Dutrow was not denied a fair hearing, it actually and necessarily decided the issue of whether the hearing officer's and Sabini's actions and Sabini's actions during the proceeding constituted due process violations," Stanceu said in his decision to dismiss. "And because Dutrow had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue (and did litigate that issue) in the Article 78 proceeding, he was collaterally estopped from re-litigating it before the district court."

Previously New York state courts also upheld the regulator's decision. The New York Court of Appeals in early 2013 decided not to hear an appeal of lower state courts' decisions to uphold the suspension.

An attorney for Dutrow could not immediately be reached for comment.