Loading advertisement
Logo
  • Shop Now
  • Help
  • Handicapping & PPs
  • Entries
  • Results
  • News & Info
  • Royal Ascot
  • Breeding
  • Harness
  • Help
  • Shop
  • DRF en Español
  • DRF Recommends
  • Bet on Sports
  • DRF Pro Services
  • DRF Form Finder
  • Horse Watch
Track Pages
Horse Racing News
Stakes Races
DRF TV
Race of the Day
International Racing
Beyer Speed Figures
DRF En Espanol

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging New York casino ballot question

Matt Hegarty|Oct 16, 2013

A judge on the Supreme Court of the State of New York has thrown out a lawsuit challenging a ballot question that will ask state voters this November whether they approve of the authorization of up to seven new casinos.

The judge, Richard Platkin, dismissed the lawsuit Wednesday in an expedited decision after it was challenged by the state’s Board of Elections, which had argued that the lawsuit from Brooklyn attorney Eric Snyder was filed too late to be heard, among other technicalities. Platkin agreed with the board on all of its counts without ever addressing Snyder’s original contention – that the ballot question contains leading language prohibited by the state’s election laws.

After the ruling was released, Snyder said he would file an emergency appeal with the state’s Appellate Court.

If his appeal is not successful, the Nov. 5 ballot question, which was crafted in part by the staff of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, will ask voters: “The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Should the amendment be approved?”

Snyder’s suit had alleged that the language following “legislated purposes” violated a state law prohibiting advocacy language on ballot questions. A poll conducted by Siena College in late September found that 55 percent supported the question when it was worded as it is, but when the language following “legislative purposes” was deleted, support dropped to half of the respondents.

DRF Headlines

View All 
Stay Updated Now

Get the latest racing news, expert picks, and exclusive analysis delivered to your inbox.

Sign Up for Newsletter

Interested in News?

Google News

Download DRF app on your smartphone.

Download appDownload app

Events

  • Royal Ascot
  • Hong Kong
  • More

News

  • Race of the Day
  • Track Pages
  • Latest News
  • Breeding
  • More

Tracks

  • Belmont at the
Big A
  • Churchill Downs
  • Gulfstream Park
  • Laurel Park
  • Woodbine

Handicapping & PPs

  • DRF Classic PPs
  • Formulator PPs
  • TimeformUS PPs
  • Daily Racing
Program
  • DRF Picks
  • More
Drf en espanolPurchase ppspreference center
Drf en espanolPurchase ppspreference center

© 2026 Daily Racing Form.  All rights reserved.

Careers
Help
Terms
Privacy

© 2026 Daily Racing Form.  All rights reserved.