Anti-gambling forces upheld in New York ruling

Joel Stashenko

Monday, Aug. 28, 2000 | 11:09 a.m.

ALBANY, N.Y. -- Gambling opponents have legal standing to challenge a casino compact Gov. George Pataki reached in May 1999 with Mohawk Indians, a state appeals court decided.

Last week's unanimous ruling by the five-member Appellate Division of state Supreme Court restored the court challenges to Pataki's compact, which had been thrown out by state Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi in Albany in March.

In that ruling, Teresi said that since the Mohawks were not named as defendants in the suit -- they are immune from state and federal suits because they constitute a sovereign nation -- the case could not go forward missing an "indispensable" party.

This time, the appeals judges said Teresi's "harsh" solution in a matter involving such "important and far-reaching issues" is not appropriate.

The court said that even without the Mohawks' participation, gambling foes could achieve the redress they are seeking. And, at any rate, the judges said the state is backing the Mohawks' interests adequately as it defends the gambling compact Pataki made with the tribe.

The St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council is a partner with Las Vegas-based Park Place Entertainment Corp. in a 2,000-room hotel-casino planned for New York's Catskills region, though the appeals court ruling didn't involve that specific project.

The judges decided that three anti-gambling groups have standing to challenge the tribe's May 1999 compact with the state: New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, the Coalition Against Casino Gambling and the Western New York Coalition Against Casino Gambling.

In addition, state legislators who were involved in a separate suit against Pataki's compact -- a deal made illegally, they argued, because the Legislature was not consulted -- have legal standing to bring their complaints. But the appellate division ruled they can do so as private citizens and not in their capacity as state lawmakers.

The five judges did find that the Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce cannot be a plaintiff in the case. The judges said the chamber's arguments about losing gambling business to Indian casinos is "too speculative." And provisions in the state constitution relating to gambling were not designed to protect one gaming venture against another gaming venture, the judges said.

The complex ruling means the case goes back to state Supreme Court, where Teresi will be asked to decide on what the gambling opponents consider their core issue -- whether Pataki can make compact agreements with Indian tribes in New York without the Legislature's approval.

The judges did note in the decision that reviewing rulings on the question from other states indicates that courts have almost always held that state legislatures must be in on the compact approval process.

"We feel pretty good on that issue given what the appellate division has said on this one," said Cornelius Murray, lawyer for anti-gambling groups.

As defined by the court's ruling, the gambling foes can only challenge Pataki's compact of May 27, 1999. It was an amended version of a compact former Gov. Mario Cuomo had reached with Mohawk Indians at the Akwesasne preserve in northern New York in 1993.

The Pataki agreement allowed the tribe to use 1,000 video slot machines at its Akwesasne Mohawk Casino.

Pataki spokeswoman Suzanne Morris said the governor's lawyers will "explore our options for appeal."

"We believe it is fundamentally unfair to adjudicate the Indians' rights to gaming in a lawsuit to which they are not a party," Morris said.

Gambling opponents were also seeking in their suit to block the Mohawks from establishing a casino at the site of the former Monticello Raceway, a harness horse racing track, in the Catskill Mountains. The Mohawks last October received permission from the U.S. Department of the Interior to purchase the property and for that casino to go forward, but Pataki has not moved to ratify that new gaming operation.

Since the Monticello project has not gone forward -- it is under staunch lobbying opposition from casino operators in Atlantic City, N.J., who worry it would siphon off their New York City customers -- it is premature for the court to block a development which has not happened, the appellate division said.

The state legislators and the anti-gambling groups had challenged the Pataki administration gaming actions in separate suits which were consolidated into one case by a lower court.