Return to Browsing

12 N.J.A.R. 208

Gaming Enforcement, State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of v. Boardwalk Regency Corporation and Jane Haverstick
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 12 N.J.A.R. 208
Decision Date: 1988
Synopsis: The Division of Gaming Enforcement filed a complaint alleging violations of the Casino Control Act. Respondents requested a hear- ing and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law. The Division charged that violations occurred when a credit executive, Jane Haverstick, removed a consolidation check from the casino cage, contacted the patron involved and, on the patron's in- structions, altered the date and amount of the check. At the Office of Administrative Law, a settlement was reached between the Division and Ms. Hayerstick. The Division and respondent Boardwalk Regen- cy entered into a stipulation of facts and agreed upon legal issues that could be presented directly to the Casino Control Commission for resolution. Accordingly, the administrative law judge entered an initial decision concluding the hearing. Upon review of this initial decision and the stipulated facts, the Commission agreed that respondents violated several provisions oœ the Casino Control Act. All redemptions, consolidations or substitutions of counter checks must take place within the cashier's cage; a counter check may not be released to someone outside the cage department, including a casino credit executive. The Commission rejected the argument that the check was only in the safekeeping of the cage and had not been received by the casino. Once a check is physically delivered to the cage, the cage is responsible for retaining the check. In addition, altering a patron's check is not an authorized procedure. Even though the Uniform Commercial Code may permit check alter- ation by the drawee at the direction of the drawer, gaming-related State of New Jersey 209 checks are not ordinary negotiable instruments governed by general commercial law principles. Gaming-related checks are unique items granted validity only to the extent that they conform with the Casino Control Act and related regulations. Respondent could not alter a patron's check in the absence of approved procedures for such a transaction. The Commission imposed a penalty of $50,000 on Boardwalk Regency. (A related case appears at 9 N.J..4.R. 274.) Kevin F. O'Toole, Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of petitioner (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) David Arran, Esq., on behalf of respondent Boardwalk Regency Corp. (Horn, Kaplan, Goldberg, Gorny & Daniels, attorneys) G. Michael Brown, Esq., on behalf of respondent Jane Haverstick (Brown & Michael, attorneys)
Rule(s) Cited: 19:45-1.11(c)9 19:45-1.11(g) 19:45-1.15(b) 19:45-1.26 
Statute(s) Cited: 5:12-99 5:12-101(c) 
Citation Tracker adopted-Casino Cont. Com'n; affirmed -App. Div., A654-87-T1, 3/30/89 (unreported) [Updated through 1991]