Bonacorsa v. Van Lindt
528 N.Y.S.2d 519, 523 N.E.2d 806, 71 N.Y.2d 605 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York Correction Law Article 23-A, a certificate of good conduct creates a presumption of rehabilitation that applies even when a direct relationship exists between an applicant's prior conviction and the license sought. However, this presumption is not dispositive and does not create an automatic entitlement to the license; the licensing agency retains discretion to deny the application after weighing the presumption against seven other statutory factors.
Facts:
- Joseph Bonacorsa was a licensed owner-trainer-driver of harness race horses.
- In 1973, a Federal Grand Jury was investigating corruption in harness racing, including the activities of Forrest Gerry, Jr., who had been previously barred from the sport.
- Bonacorsa falsely testified to the Grand Jury that a horse owned by Gerry was actually owned by his wife.
- Bonacorsa also solicited another horse trainer to falsely testify about a horse sale to conceal Gerry's ownership.
- As a result, Bonacorsa was convicted of making a false declaration to a Federal Grand Jury and obstructing justice.
- In 1974, the Racing and Wagering Board revoked Bonacorsa's license due to his federal convictions.
- Years after completing his prison sentence in 1977, Bonacorsa received a certificate of good conduct from the New York State Board of Parole.
- In 1985, Bonacorsa applied to the Racing and Wagering Board for a new license.
Procedural Posture:
- The Hearing Officer for the Racing and Wagering Board recommended denial of Joseph Bonacorsa's 1985 license application, and the Board confirmed this determination.
- Bonacorsa initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the New York Supreme Court (a trial-level court) to challenge the Board's decision.
- The Supreme Court granted Bonacorsa's petition, annulling the Board's order and remitting the matter for further consideration.
- The Racing and Wagering Board (appellant) appealed the decision to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order and dismissed Bonacorsa's petition.
- Bonacorsa (petitioner-appellant) was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under New York Correction Law Article 23-A, does an applicant's certificate of good conduct, which creates a presumption of rehabilitation, override a licensing agency's discretion to deny a license when a direct relationship exists between the applicant's prior conviction and the license sought?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No, an applicant's certificate of good conduct does not override an agency's discretion. While the certificate creates a presumption of rehabilitation that must be considered even when a direct relationship exists between the crime and the license, it does not establish a prima facie entitlement to the license. The court reasoned that to give any meaning to Correction Law § 753(2), the presumption must apply in direct relationship cases, otherwise the provision would be superfluous. However, this presumption is just one of eight factors the agency must weigh. In this case, the Board properly exercised its discretion by considering all factors, including the seriousness of Bonacorsa's offenses (felonies involving perjury and obstruction of justice in a race-fixing investigation), his maturity and experience at the time of the crimes, and the state's legitimate and high interest in protecting the integrity of horse racing, a heavily regulated industry involving legal gambling. The Board's decision was therefore not arbitrary or capricious.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and limits of New York's Correction Law Article 23-A, which aims to help ex-offenders find employment. The court establishes that while the law provides a significant protection—a presumption of rehabilitation—it is not an absolute bar to an agency's exercise of discretion. It solidifies a balancing test approach, empowering agencies to deny licenses where a conviction is directly related to the job, provided they conduct a thorough, non-arbitrary analysis of all statutory factors. This precedent ensures that agencies can still protect public welfare and industry integrity while giving ex-offenders a fair opportunity for consideration.
