Suit: Rio used liquor, prostitutes to induce gambler

Grace Leong

Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2000 | 11:11 a.m.

A Los Angeles high-rolling alcoholic sued the Rio hotel-casino, alleging it enticed him with sex and liquor to gamble until he lost all $1.035 million of his inheritance and insurance proceeds at its blackjack tables.

Harry A. (Hank) Braverman said that during a gambling spree in 1997 he started with bets of less than $2,000 a hand at the Rio's blackjack tables. But within three weeks, he said his bets -- which never previously exceeded $2,000 -- soared to as high as $30,000 a hand.

Braverman, who began his gaming trips to the Rio in April 1995, claims he is entitled to recover the $1.035 million he lost, alleging the Rio violated Nevada gaming regulations when it defrauded him by providing sex and alcohol to keep him gambling at the casino.

While it isn't uncommon for disgruntled gamblers to sue casinos in disputes over money lost, complaints alleging the use of prostitutes to encourage gamblers are rare.

"This is the first time I'm aware that such a suit has been filed against the Rio," said Harrah's Entertainment spokesman Gary Thompson.

Harrah's owns the Rio.

"We're aware that an individual claims to have lost money over several days at the Rio," he said. "This individual has hired an attorney to try to get that money back. We believe his claims have no merit whatsoever, and that he is now trying to use the news media for financial gain."

In a Jan. 28 motion, Braverman accused the Rio -- which he said was aware of his drinking problem -- of plying him with free alcoholic beverages to keep him drunk. He also alleged its employees procured prostitutes for him daily from late October through mid-November of 1997 to entice him to stay at the casino.

Fredric Greenblatt, Braverman's attorney, said he doesn't know who paid for the prostitutes, but said the very act of procuring women for Braverman violates Nevada law.

Braverman's motion said the Rio also violated another statute, Nevada gaming regulation 6A, implemented May 1, 1997 -- which requires all patrons, even known ones, to provide proper identification including photo ID to any casino where they are engaged in transactions exceeding $10,000. Braverman alleged the Rio allowed him to play, even though he didn't have valid photo identification.

Braverman, who said he deposited $750,000 in proceeds from a life insurance policy with the Rio in June 1997, alleged he was initially told by Rio employees he could not draw the funds until the checks cleared and he provided proper identification.

When he returned two weeks later and was denied the right to draw chips at the cage due to lack of a valid photo ID on the computer file, Braverman said credit manager Ray Gambardella allegedly accepted a court order requiring his attendance at an alcoholics' program. The motion said his driver's license was previously suspended for drunken driving.

"The Rio knew that if it kept him there long enough, he'd lose the money. It took three and a half weeks for this to happen," Greenblatt said.

"The game obviously isn't played on a level playing field. If he hadn't been an alcoholic and the hotel-casino didn't violate Nevada gaming regulations, and he'd lost the money, then it's losers' remorse.

"But in this circumstance, when the rules are ignored and the player is kept intoxicated, provided with illegal sexual services, and doesn't have proper ID, letting him play just because he deposited over a million dollars with the casino is just inconsistent with Nevada gaming regulations," he said.

The defendants argued in a Dec. 22 motion to dismiss the suit that Braverman's complaint should be dismissed because he is seeking to recover gaming losses.

Suits filed to recover funds claimed against casinos are unenforceable under Nevada law, and can only be brought for judicial review before Nevada's gaming authorities, including the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission, the motion said.

The defendants alleged Braverman's claims weren't valid because Nevada law doesn't recognize private causes of action against casinos' alleged violation of gaming regulations. Even if such a private right of action does exist, primary jurisdiction would lie with Nevada gaming authorities, not the court, the Rio asserts.

Greenblatt said his client filed suit in June 1999 after the Rio's counsel told Braverman the hotel-casino had contacted the Nevada Gaming Control Board and was told it didn't violate any gaming regulations.

He said the Gaming Control Board sent a letter on Feb. 3 to Braverman saying it was "unable to recommend either for or against a monetary award."

"The defendants claimed that appealing to Nevada gaming authorities is the only forum for resolution. But we don't think so," Greenblatt said. "That Feb. 3 letter only confirms that we had to go to court to recover the money."

Nevada Gaming Control Board chief of enforcement Keith Copher, who noted neither Braverman nor the Rio have filed a complaint with the board, said it sent the letter saying the board couldn't handle Braverman's claims because it doesn't fall under the category of a patron's dispute over winnings.

"The Rio made an inquiry of the board, saying Braverman is trying to get his money back because the casino (allegedly) didn't follow proper procedures with 6A," Copher said. "The Rio requested this matter be handled as a patron dispute.

"But we're saying this kind of claim doesn't fall under that category and therefore the board can't handle the claim."

Gregg Gale, the Nevada Gaming Control Board's audit division chief, added: "The question is whether Braverman provided proper ID when he first arrived at the Rio in 1995. If they had a copy of his ID showing the license hasn't expired, then there shouldn't be any problem."