Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise v. Renzulli

Other Lower Courts

May 21, 2001

Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, Doing Business as Foxwoods Resort Casino, Plaintiff,
v.
Jean A. Renzulli, Defendant.

COUNSEL

Wong Fleming, P. C., New York City, for plaintiff.

Jean A. Renzulli, defendantpro se.

OPINION

Thomas F. Whelan, J.

Ordered that this unopposed motion by plaintiff for summary

Page 711

judgment in lieu of complaint is granted to the extent that plaintiff is awarded judgment against defendant in the sum of $5,160; and it is further ordered that the remaining requests for counsel fees and interest are set down for an inquest to be held on June 21, 2001, at 9:30 A.M . in Part 33, at the courthouse located at 235 Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York 11901.

This matter, involving a gambling obligation incurred at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, appears to be a case of first impression in our courts. The Court is asked to enforce a gambling contract. Ordinarily, such obligations are unenforceable at common law and, by statute, are void and illegal in our state. However, since these gambling debts were validly contracted in a sovereign Indian Nation, pursuant to a Tribal-State Compact governing the conduct of gaming activities, New York courts are bound to enforce the collection of such debts.

Plaintiff, Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise, doing business as Foxwoods Resort Casino, located in the State of Connecticut, is owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, a sovereign Indian Nation. It is a federally recognized Indian tribe (25 U.S.C. § 1758 [a]), which exercises sovereign rights pursuant to its constitution and by-laws. It operates the Foxwoods Resort Casino in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (hereinafter IGRA) (25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) and Tribal law. These laws permit casino gaming, known as class III gaming, pursuant to a Tribal-State Compact (see, 25 U.S.C. § 2710 [d]; 56 Fed Reg 24996 [1991]).

On or about September 16, 1994, defendant, a resident of Centereach, New York, applied for a $5,000 line of credit, which was extended to her. On or about December 13, 1995, defendant exercised her right to use the line of credit. At the time defendant applied for the line of credit, she was informed that any obligation incurred by her may be enforced in the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court (hereinafter Tribal Court). Since defendant's signature appears on the credit application, she thus consented to the Tribal Court's jurisdiction.

In exchange for receiving the line of credit, defendant signed two separate " markers" drawn on European American Bank in Centereach, New York. One " marker" was for $3,000 and the second " marker" was for $2,000. Upon presentation to the bank, the " markers" were returned to plaintiff for insufficient funds. During the next ensuing four years, plaintiff corresponded with defendant attempting to collect on defendant's obligation. Defendant did not respond.

Page 712

On May 12, 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant with the Tribal Court, pursuant to the " Tribe" debt collection laws. Defendant neither appeared before the Tribal Court nor answered the complaint. On or about September 1, 2000, the Tribal Court entered a default judgment against defendant. On May 31, 2000, plaintiff commenced the instant action consisting of a single cause of action. Defendant was served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) and she neither appeared nor answered in said action. Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment against defendant pursuant to CPLR 3215 for the payment of money damages incurred as a result of the gambling debt.

Gambling in the State of New York is unlawful (see, General Obligations Law§ 5-401). Therefore, such a debt under New York law would be unenforceable. However, when a debt instrument is issued as the result of a gaming debt, the courts of the State of New York will look to the laws of the jurisdiction where the debt was incurred to determine the validity and enforceability of such debt (see, Aspinall's Club v Aryeh,86 A.D.2d 428 [2d Dept. 1982]; Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v Golden,15 N.Y.2d 9 [1964]). A gambling debt will not be enforced in New York unless it was validly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.