Cordero v. Corbisiero

599 N.E.2d 670 (1992)


D's policy required that, following an administrative appeal, a suspension imposed for an infraction committed at the racetrack was to have been served at the meet the following year. this was known as the Saratoga Policy. D did not issue this policy according to the rulemaking procedures set forth in the State APA. P was P was cited for an infraction and appealed to D. P did not prevail, and D determined P must serve the penalty during Saratoga racing days. P contended that the policy had the attributes of a 'rule' and could not have been applied in his case because it was not formally promulgated by D pursuant to the APA rule-making procedures. D argued that the policy did not fit the definition of a rule because it only affected the implementation of a penalty, not the jockey's conduct. The courts along the way agreed with D. P appealed.