Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · 1947 · Property

Propertyrace trackexclusionprivate propertyplace of amusementlicense vs franchisecivil rights lawequal protection

Facts

Plaintiff, a self-described patron of the races, was barred by defendant from its Aqueduct Race Track in 1945 because defendant mistakenly believed he was a bookmaker previously identified by Frank Costello. Plaintiff claimed that, as a citizen and taxpayer willing to pay admission, he had a right to enter the track and participate in pari-mutuel betting. Defendant asserted an unlimited power to exclude him. The opinion notes that plaintiff was not excluded on account of race, creed, color, or national origin.

Issue

May the operator of a horse race track exclude a person from attending its races without reason or sufficient excuse, so long as the exclusion is not based on race, creed, color, or national origin? Does the state's licensing of pari-mutuel betting or horse racing create a constitutional or public right of admission?

Rule

At common law, proprietors of private enterprises such as places of amusement and resort may admit only those whom they choose and exclude others at will, unlike those engaged in public callings who must serve the public without discrimination. A race track is such a private enterprise, and its common-law power of exclusion continues except to the extent limited by statute; in New York, the relevant limitation forbids discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin. A license to conduct pari-mutuel betting or horse racing is not a franchise and does not transform the operator into a state agent or place the operator under a public duty to admit all patrons.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Harbor Racing, a privately owned horse-racing venue in Albany, sells admission tickets and offers lawful pari-mutuel wagering under state licenses. When Daniel Ruiz arrives to buy a ticket, the manager tells him he is not welcome and refuses entry, giving no reason; Daniel is not excluded because of race, creed, color, or national origin.

If Daniel sues seeking an injunction requiring Blue Harbor Racing to admit him upon payment of the ticket price, who is likely to prevail?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a racetrack is a private place of amusement, not a public calling. At common law, proprietors of such private enterprises may admit whom they choose and exclude others solely of their own volition. That power continues unless changed by statute, and the opinion identifies only statutory limits forbidding discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin. Because none of those grounds is present here, the racetrack prevails. (Derived from Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, Inc. (1947).)