Return to Browsing

9 N.J.A.R. 297

Rosenkranz, Sidney & Fernando, Richard v. Alcoholic Beverage Control, John F. Vassallo, Jr., Director of the State Division of
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 9 N.J.A.R. 297
Decision Date: 1984
Synopsis: Pursuant to an order of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division [Rosenkranz v. Vassallo, 193 N.J. Super. 319 (App. Div. 1984)], the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control held a hearing to determine if the appellant's gaming video machines were the type of equipment banned from licensed premises pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:2-23.7(a)4 as articulated in a Division policy interpretation contained in A.B.C. Bulletin No. 2430, Item No. 3 (March 31, 1983). That policy states that video machines simulating gaming operations (blackjack, poker, slot machines, etc.) which can be easily utilized or adapated to actual gambling, cannot be placed upon liquor licensed premises. The Director concluded that the first of the machines presented to him was no different from any other video game which was designed for gambling, and thus the machines would violate the regulation. Functions of that machine included the ability to insert an unlimited number of coins to build up 'credits,' recognizing winning play by showing accumulated 'credits' which stayed displayed; and the ability to quickly erase (i.e., pay off) the credits by utilizing a rapid credit-elimination device (either a double or nothing feature or 'knock-off' switch on the rear of the machine.) While the second machine bore many similarities to another manufacturer's machine which had been exempted from the ban, the Director continued his ban on the second machine until such time as the device's electronic program could be readily identified. Without such an identification, the Director determined that a danger existed that the program might be modified or changed to facilitate actual gambling. In addition, the Director observed that, to date, only two exceptions to the ban of N.J.A.C. 13:2-23.7(a)4 had been issued. Those exceptions had been issued directly to the manufacturer, and had two conditions. First, copies of the exception were to be maintained on the retailer's licensed premises and second, the Division was to be notified within 48 hours of a machine's placement at each particular retailer's licensed premises.
Rule(s) Cited: 13:2-23.7(a)4