Return to Browsing

12 N.J.A.R. 401

Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc., Mervin E. Hoagland, et al.: Division of Gaming Enforcement v
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 12 N.J.A.R. 401
Decision Date: 1986
Synopsis: The Division of Gaming Enforcement filed a complaint with the Casino Control Commission seeking sanctions against respondents for violations of the Casino Control Act and Commission regulations. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing. The incident which resulted in the complaint involved two casino patrons who were suspected of cheating at blackjack at the Sands ß Casino Hotel, which is owned and operated by Greate Bay. Employees of the Sands attempted to investigate the matter themselves rather than bring it to the attention of the regulatory authorities. Commission regulations require that all cards be accounted for and collected at the end of the gaming day. Sands employees impeded the investigation efforts of the Commission and the Division by, among other things, removing the cards from the table at which the suspected cheating occurred and substituting others in their place. The suspect cards were thereafter removed from the casino facility by a Sands employee. The administrative law judge assigned to the case concluded that the employees' conduct had violated various provisions of the Act and Commission regulations and ordered sanctions. However, the judge found that Greate Bay was not responsible for the actions of the employees and dismissed the complaint as to Greate Bay. Upon review of this initial decision, although the Commission agreed that the conduct of the individual respondents had been im- proper, it modified both the judge's conclusions as to the provisions of the Act and Commission regulations violated and the recommended sanctions. Further, the Commission held that Greate Bay was liable for the violations committed by its employees. Following an appeal to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, by respondent Greate Bay, the Commission issued a written opinion explaining that Greate Bay was vicariously liable for violations committed by its employees regardless of the level of employees involved, or whether the violation was inadvertent or unintentional or committed without the knowledge or approval of Greate Bay. As a sanction, the Commission ordered Greate Bay to pay a penalty of $30,000 and directed the licensee to conduct seminars for its casino-related supervisory personnel about the Casino Control Act and Commission regulations. Frederic E. Gushin, Deputy Attorney General, and Paul Vagianos, Deputy Attorney General, for the petitioner (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) Roberto Rivera-Soto, Esq., Vice-President and Corporate Counsel, for respondent Greate Bay Hotel and Casino, Inc. E. Allan Nickerson, Esq., for respondent Mervin E. Hoagland William J. Musso, respondent, pro se
Rule(s) Cited: 19:41-7.2 19:46-1.18 
Statute(s) Cited: 5:12-80(d) 5:12-86c(4) 5:12-89b(1) 5:12-89b(3) 5:12-99(a)15 5:12-100(b) 
Citation Tracker modified-Casino Cont. Com'n; affirmed -App. Div., A540-86-T6 , 7/8/88 (unreported) [Updated through 1991]