King Intern. Corp. v. Voloshin
| Decision Date | 22 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 134915,134915 |
| Citation | 366 A.2d 1172,33 Conn.Supp. 166 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | KING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. Marvin VOLOSHIN. |
Ritter, Tapper & Totten, Hartford, for plaintiff.
Winnick, Resnik, Skolnick & Auerbach, New Haven, for defendant.
The fundamental questions involved in the present proceedings are whether the ancient and deep-rooted policy against gambling, as enunciated by the Supreme Court of this state, has been abandoned in view of the recent legalization of certain forms of gambling in Connecticut, and, in view thereof, whether the present cause of action, akin to those heretofore denied by Connecticut courts; Ciampittiello v. Campitello, 134 Conn. 51, 55, 54 A.2d 669; Hilton of San Juan, Inc. v. Lateano, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 680, 305 A.2d 538; can now be maintained. The plaintiff claims that, since Connecticut now sanctions the promotions of gambling activities, it would be unreasonable for this state not to accord legal recognition to an out-of-state gambling obligation incurred in a licensed gambling casino. The plaintiff requests our courts to recognize that obligation by denying the present motion.
The plaintiff, the owner and operator of a government-licensed gambling casino in Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, seeks to recover $15,000. That amount was stipulated as advanced to the defendant by the plaintiff on December 28, 1975, in the form of gambling chips which were used for gambling by the defendant. The parties further have stipulated that the advance of the $15,000 resulted in a legal and enforceable obligation incurred by the defendant under the laws of the Netherlands Antilles. The defendant executed a check to the order of the plaintiff in the amount of $15,000, and, subsequently, the defendant stopped payment of that check.
It is clear that the law of the locality where a contract is made is to be applied by the courts of this state. Breen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 153 Conn. 633, 637, 220 A.2d 254. Ordinarily Aruban law would apply in this situation since 'it is our settled policy to keep our courts open for the enforcement of a proper foreign law unless a well-established public forbids.' Ciampittiello v. Campitello, supra, 55, 54 A.2d 670. Therefore, the defendant's obligation may be the basis for a judgment by this court unless that is precluded by a clear-cut, substantial public policy forbidding recognition of Aruban law.
In 1971, the Connecticut legislature broke with the state's long tradition of prohibiting and established the commission on special revenue consisting of a state lottery division, a state racing division, and a state off-track betting division. General Statutes §§ 12-557, 12-567. In particular, the legislature authorized (1) the operation of a lottery; General Statutes § 12-568; (2) the establishment of off-track betting parlors; General Statutes § 12-571; and (3) parimutuel betting at licensed racing events. General Statutes § 12-575. Thereafter, in 1972, the legislature reenacted the preceding provisions and, in addition, gave authorization to the commission on special revenue for the operation of frontons for the exhibition of jai alai. General Statutes § 12-573a. In 1975, the legislature added an instant lottery. General Statutes § 12-568, Public Acts 1975, No. 75-344. In 1976, the legislature authorized a daily lottery. Public Acts 1976, No. 76-387, § 4.
The public support for those gambling activities appears to be widespread. The commission on special revenue estimates that, on the average, 600,000 people, of about thirty percent of the entire adult population of the state, participate in the weekly lottery. There are more than 3200 privately-owned stores and shops selling lottery tickets throughout the state. Licenses have been issued for one greyhound track in Plainfield, for jai alai frontons in Hartford, Bridgeport, and Milford, and for a combination harness and thoroughbred race track, the location to be determined in the future.
In each town where an application is filed for a race track or fronton license, a referendum is required. General Statutes § 12-574a. In addition to the people who have supported the approval of the facilities mentioned above, the people of Middletown and Wolcott have supported the idea of a combination track in their towns. According to the commission on special revenue, only the people of Southington denied support for a racing facility.
In the first twenty weeks of operation, the attendance at the greyhound track in Plainfield averaged 5185 people each night and the amount wagered averaged a total of $439,000 each night. The total attendance in twenty weeks was 648,175 and the total amount wagered during that period was $56.3 million. In the first twenty performances of jai alai in Hartford, the attendance averaged 4613 each day and the amount wagered averaged $232,959 each day. In the first eight performances of jai alai in Bridgeport, the attendance averaged 3694 each day and the amount wagered averaged $207,090 each day.
Off-track betting parlors opened on April 29, 1976, in ten Connecticut communities: Bridgeport, Bristol, Derby, Meriden, Norwich, Waterbury, Torrington, Killingly, New London and West Haven. The municipal legislative authority approved the parlors in each instance after public hearings. Although facilities have not yet opened, parlors have also been approved by local governments following hearings in six other towns: Norwalk, Newington, New Haven, Enfield, East Haven and Shelton. In the first month of operation, bets totaling.$5,604,000 were placed at the off-track betting parlors; on the average, 70,000 transactions a day were made. 1
The court also notes that the legislature has authorized bingo; General Statutes § 7-169; bazaars and raffles; General Statutes § 7-170; and other games of chance for nonprofit organizations. General Statutes § 7-186a.
In spite of the legislation set forth above, however, Connecticut has never deviated from its ancient prohibition of gambling on credit. 2 Agents are to sell lottery tickets for cash, not for credit. General Statutes § 12-569(b). Also, all bets at offtrack betting facilities 'shall be made with United States currency.' Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 12-571-9(d). 'All (parimutuel) ticket sales shall be for cash.' Regs., Conn. State Agencies §§ 12-574-A14(f), (thoroughbred); 12-574-B14(f), (harness); 12-574-C14(f), (greyhound); 12-574-D14(f)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ziskis v. Kowalski, Civ. No. H-80-487(AHN).
...not. Indeed, gambling remains a suspect activity in Connecticut, even though it has been legalized. See King Int'l Corp. v. Voloshin, 33 Conn.Supp. 166, 171, 366 A.2d 1172, 1175 (1976): While the state's heretofore ancient and deep-rooted policy of condemning gambling has been eroded to som......
-
Casanova Club v. Bisharat
...forbidding wagering contracts; General Statutes §§ 52-553 and 52-554; are particularly directed. King International Corporation v. Voloshin, 33 Conn.Sup. 166, 169-71, 366 A.2d 1172 (1976). In effect, the plaintiff urges that these judicial and legislative developments should lead us to reco......
-
Hilton Intern. Co. v. Arace
...barred the plaintiff from obtaining a judgment in this state upon the subject matter of its claim. See King International Corporation v. Voloshin, 33 Conn.Sup. 166, 366 A.2d 1172. This circumstance does not avail the defendant, however, because the issue before the court is whether full fai......
-
Metropolitan Creditors Service v. Sadri
...is lawful or not. This distinction between gambling itself and gambling on credit was elucidated in King International Corp. v. Voloshin (Conn.Super.Ct.1976) 33 Conn.Sup. 166, 366 A.2d 1172. The defendant in that case stopped payment on a check given in exchange for chips at a licensed casi......