Hilton of San Juan, Inc. v. Lateano

• Decision Date: 27 September 1972
• Docket Number: No. CV,CV
• Citation: 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 680,305 A.2d 538
• Court: Connecticut Circuit Court
• Parties: HILTON OF SAN JUAN, INC. v. Frank J. LATEANO et al. 12-7011-07647.

Page 538

305 A.2d 538

6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 680

HILTON OF SAN JUAN, INC. v. Frank J. LATEANO et al.

No. CV 12-7011-07647.

Circuit Court of Connecticut, Twelfth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 1972.

Sharaf & Klau, Hartford, for plaintiff.

John P. McKeon, Hartford, for defendants.

BIELUCH, Judge.

The plaintiff operates a hotel and gambling casino in Puerto Rico and brought this action against the defendants, husband and wife, residents of Connecticut, to recover $3000 loaned to them in four instalments between February 26 and March 1, 1969, while they were guests at its hotel. In its more specific statement the plaintiff claimed that the loans were made at the request of the defendant Frank J. Lateano and were paid to him in the form of chips. Thereafter the plaintiff by amendment alleged that it cashed 'defendant's (sic)' checks in that amount. The defendants pleaded specially that any debt due the plaintiff arose out of gambling transactions, and they have moved for summary judgment because of the uncollectibility of gambling debts in Connecticut. The plaintiff has countered with its own motion for summary judgment on the law.

The defendant Frank J. Lateano, hereinafter called the defendant, asserts in his supporting affidavit the following uncontradicted facts: Reservations were made through a local agent for him and his wife to stay at the plaintiff's hotel, with a prior understanding that the air fare would be fully reimbursed in the form of gambling chips; the plaintiff conformed to this arrangement and repaid the cost of the flight to the defendants in gambling chips on their arrival at the hotel; during the defendant's stay between February 26 and March 1, 1969, he applied for credit on four occasions and received for his promissory notes, with no other option offered, gambling chips usable and redeemable only at the plaintiff's hotel, and as a result of gambling at the plaintiff's dice tables he lost $3000 in gambling chips. The affidavit of the plaintiff's manager states: The hotel accepted the defendant's promissory notes for which it gave him $3000 in chips; it does not have any rules requiring that the chips obtained in exchange for promissory notes be used for gambling purposes; if the defendant used the chips for gambling, it was at his own choice, and the chips could also have been used in the hotel for payment of charges for room, food and entertainment, could have been sold to another person, or could have been cashed at the casino.

Summary judgment should be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book § 303; Anderson v. Watson, 162 Conn. 245, 248, 294 A.2d 278; First Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Deane, 29 Conn.Sup. 505, 506, 294 A.2d 84.

The defendant relies on Ciampittiello v. Campitello, 134 Conn. 51, 54 A.2d 669 in which our court held that we will not enforce the laws of another jurisdiction or rights arising thereunder which contravene our public policy, and, therefore, it refused to uphold an agreement to share the proceeds of parimutuel horse bets legally made in Rhode Island as violative of such public policy and what is now § 52-553 of the General Statutes, outlawing gambling contracts. The plaintiff seeks to escape the clutches of § 52-553 by dissecting the defendant's loans from his subsequent gambling losses, conceding that notes to cover prior losses would be unrecoverable, and claims that since the chips were 'legal tender' within the confines of the hotel and the defendant was not compelled to use his chips for gambling, the promissory notes by which they were obtained did not constitute gambling debts. In support of its position the plaintiff cites Hamilton v. Abadjian, 30 Cal.2d 49, 179 P.2d 804. In that case the plaintiff's assignor operated a hotel and gambling casino in Nevada and gave cash for the defendant's checks with no restriction on the use of the money. Recovery was denied by the California court for the checks cashed at the gambling table, the court saying, '(t)he owner of a gambling house who honors a check for the purpose of providing a prospective customer with funds with which to gamble and who then participates in the transaction thus promoted by his act cannot recover on the check,' and allowed for the other checks since the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof before the jury that those checks were cashed for gambling purposes, the plaintiff having 'produced evidence that defendant received cash and not chips for checks, (and) that he lost $2,500 in another establishment.' Id., 52-53, 179 P.2d 806.

It is a general principle of our law that a plaintiff may enforce in the courts of this state any legal right of action which he may have under the law of another jurisdiction except when that law or the rights arising thereunder...