Ny State Casino License Decision
Gaming
Approved independent testing laboratories for commercial and video lottery gaming facilities:
• Gaming Laboratories International, LLC (GLI)
• BMM Testlabs
Video Lottery Terminals and Electronic Table Games: Similar in appearance to classic slot machines or as simulated classic table games, these terminals are linked to a centralized system maintained by the Gaming Commission that tracks the game play and earnings for each game.
• Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs) have the same appearance as slot machines. VLTs must receive winning outcomes transmitted by the central system. • Electronic Table Games (ETGs) offer video versions of popular casino games like roulette, craps, and baccarat. ETGs are capable of generating winning outcomes at each table. Video lottery gaming operations began in 2004 at Saratoga Gaming & Raceway in Saratoga Springs and have since expanded to eight additional facilities. As of January 1, 2013, there were 17,213 such machines operating in New York State.
Indian Gaming: In 1988 Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act permitting federally recognized Indian tribes the ability to conduct gaming activities under certain circumstances. This law allows traditional Indian gaming, bingo, pull tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, and certain card games on tribal land. However, it requires a Tribal/State compact for all other forms of gaming. Three tribes have lawful gaming in New York State:
• The Seneca Nation of Indians operate the Class III Seneca Niagara Casino in Niagara Falls, the Class III Seneca Allegany Casino, the Class III Seneca Buffalo Casino in Buffalo, and Class II bingo on both their Cattaraugus and Allegany Reservation lands • The St. Regis Mohawks operate the Class II Mohawk Bingo Palace and the Class III Akwesasne Mohawk Casino, which also houses Class II poker games • The Oneida Indian Nation of New York operates the Turning Stone Casino, which houses both Class II bingo and poker, as well as its Class III gaming operations. The Gaming Commission maintains a constant twenty-four hour presence within the gaming facilities of the five Class III facilities to maintain the integrity of all activities conducted in regard to Class III gaming, and to insure the fair and honest operation of such gaming activities. Additionally, the State conducts background investigations on all employees of the casino and enterprises who conduct gaming related business with the casino to ensure their suitability. Pursuant to each Compact the State jointly regulates Class III gaming facilities with a Nation or Tribal Gaming Agency, respectively. Class II gaming activities, e.g., bingo, pull tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, and certain card games, are regulated by the Tribe in conjunction with the National Indian Gaming Commission, although tribes, under certain circumstances, may self-regulate these activities.
Commercial Gaming Reports
TIOGA DOWNS CASINO 2384 W River Rd
Nichols, NY 13812-1406
1-888-WIN-TIOGA
1-888-946-8464
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelDEL LAGO RESORT AND CASINO 1133 Route 414
Waterloo, NY 13165
315-946-1777
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelRIVERS CASINO & RESORT 1 Rush Street
Schenectady, NY 12308
518-579-8800
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelRESORTS WORLD CATSKILLS 888 Resorts World Drive
Monticello, NY 12701
833-586-9358
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download PDF
download ExcelVideo Gaming Reports
RESORTS WORLD CASINO NEW YORK CITY 110-00 Rockaway Blvd
Jamaica, NY 11420
(718) 215-2828
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download Excel
download ExcelNASSAU OTB AT RESORTS WORLD CASINO NEW YORK CITY 110-00 Rockaway Blvd
Jamaica, NY 11420
(888) 888-8801
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelEMPIRE CITY CASINO AT YONKERS RACEWAY 810 Yonkers Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10704
(914) 968-4200
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download Excel
download ExcelSARATOGA CASINO - HOTEL 342 Jefferson St
Saratoga Springs, NY
12866 (518) 584-2110
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelFINGER LAKES GAMING & RACETRACK 5857 Route 96
Farmington, NY 14425
(585) 924-3232
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelMONTICELLO CASINO & RACEWAY 204 State Route 17B
Monticello, NY 12701
(845) 794-4100
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelHAMBURG GAMING AT THE FAIRGROUNDS 5600 McKinley Parkway
Hamburg, NY 14075
(716) 646-6109
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelTIOGA DOWNS CASINO 2384 W River Rd
Nichols, NY 13812-1406
1-888-WIN-TIOGA
1-888-946-8464
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelVERNON DOWNS CASINO & HOTEL 4229 Stuhlman Rd
Vernon, NY 13476
877-88-VERNON
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelBATAVIA DOWNS GAMING 8315 Park Road
Batavia, NY 14020
(585) 343-3750
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelJAKES 58 HOTEL & CASINO 3635 Express Drive N
Islandia, NY 11749
(631) 232-3000
visit websiteMonthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelSTATEWIDE All Video Gaming Locations Monthly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelWeekly Financial
Report
download pdf
download ExcelResponsible Gaming
The New York State Gaming Commission, the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) and the New York Council on Problem Gambling have formed the Responsible Play Partnership to address problem gambling in New York State. The Responsible Play Partnership is addressing a variety of issues surrounding problem gambling, including ensuring that gaming venues comply with all rules and regulations and undertake proper outreach measures, reevaluating self-exclusion policies across the state to ensure consistency, and considering the best ways to advance New York’s long-term commitment to prevent and treat compulsive gambling.
The issue of problem gambling is an important one. If you need help or want information, or know someone else who does, here are some places to start:
24-Hour Problem Gambling Helpline
1-877-846-7369 TEXT: HOPENY (467369)
Voluntary Self Exclusion
To voluntarily exclude from New York State gaming facilities, including casinos, horse racing, off-track betting, video lottery gaming and interactive fantasy sports activities in New York State pursuant to Title 9 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York and New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law section 1404(1)(d):
Please complete the form:
Request for Voluntary Self-Exclusion from All Gaming Facilities and Entities Licensed, Permitted or Registered by the New York State Gaming Commission.
The notarized form, with photograph as per instructions, should be mailed to:New York State Gaming Commission
Director of Education & Community Relations
PO Box 7500
Schenectady, New York 12301-7500Individuals may also self-exclude at licensed gaming facilities across the state.Laws, Rules & Regulations
• CHAPTER IV. DIVISION OF GAMING
The Upstate New York Gaming and Economic Development Act: Below are the two Chapters that comprise the Upstate New York Gaming and Economic Development Act. Chapter 175 amends Chapter 174. Therefore both must be examined to get the full scope of the law.
• Chapter 174 of the Laws of 2013
• Chapter 175 of the Laws of 2013
Indian Gaming
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Development of Indian Gaming Law
• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Buttersworth
• California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
• Indian Gambling After Seminole Tribe v. Florida
• New York Compacts and Provisions
• Casino Contact Information
Locations
View New York State Gaming Commission Locations (VLTs) in a larger map
- NY Casino License Bidding Process Receives One Applicant. Tiago Downs, the sole bidder for the fourth NY casino license, proposes an improved expansion package having failed to impress last.
- Oct 13, 2015 We are also planning licensing seminars in the three regions where the casinos are to be located, in the hopes that we can streamline the process for businesses wishing to work on these projects. C&S: Some state lawmakers are exploring the possibility of online poker in New York. Has the commission studied this at all or have any insights, such.
(c) Each applicant employed by a gaming facility licensee shall be a resident of the state prior to the issuance of a casino key employee license; provided, however, that upon petition by the holder of a license, the commission may waive this residency requirement for any applicant whose particular position will require him to be employed. Dec 08, 2019 Sports betting began today in New York State. July 16, 2019. Sports betting in New York State officially began today when the first bets were placed at Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady. Rivers Casino & Resort began this historic day with a ribbon-cutting celebration to open its new, 5,000-square-foot sports betting lounge. Elcome to the New York Department of State's Division of Licensing Services (DLS), which oversees the licensure, registration, and regulation of 35 occupations throughout the state. DLS licenses over 800,000 individuals and businesses. Through its licensing and business filing capacities the division promotes business growth while protecting the health, safety, and welfare of all New Yorkers. The Division is. Dec 21, 2015 The Oneidas, which own the Turning Stone Casino & Resort in central New York, said the state Gaming Commission’s decision was “a predictable outcome of a process that was predetermined to. All New York State certified MWBEs who are interested in participating in the Casino Projects should contact the listed Casino contact. A webinar information session was held in mid-November 2015 advising MWBEs of the contracting opportunities. For a copy of the presentation, email your request to MWBEBusinessDev@esd.ny.gov.
Ny State Casino License Decision Status
Development of Indian Gaming Law |
| Indian gaming is a large, growing segment of the gaming industry in the United States. Today, 157 Indian tribes or nations operate gaming facilities in 24 states. In New York State, the Oneida Indian Nation, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and the Seneca Nation of Indians operate full-scale casinos. Indian gaming is the product of an interplay between traditional Indian sovereignty, federal law supremacy and a long, rich history of judicial battles. |
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Buttersworth |
| In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Buttersworth, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted injunctive relief preventing a county sheriff from interfering with high stakes bingo games conducted by an Indian tribe, despite the fact that the tribal games’ prizes greatly exceeded amounts allowed under state law, and Florida had criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indian lands within its borders pursuant to Public Law 280. There has been a great deal of litigation defining the scope of jurisdiction granted states by Public Law 280. In Bryan v. Itasca, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that Public Law 280 did not grant states general civil regulatory authority over Indian territory, but was limited to granting state courts the power to adjudicate civil disputes involving Indians. The court held that there was an 'absence of anything remotely resembling an intention [on the part of Congress] to confer general state civil regulatory control over Indian reservations.' Id., at 384. In the first decision regarding the application of state gambling laws to activities of an Indian tribe, the Court created a test as to when a Public Law 280 State would be allowed to interfere on reservation lands with respect to gambling. If a law is criminal-prohibitory in nature, then it is enforceable on Indian lands. If the law is civil-regulatory in nature, then the State cannot enforce such law on Indian lands. After Buttersworth, high-stakes bingo operations and other gaming enterprises began to open on Indian lands in the United States. The rapid growth of unregulated Indian gambling enterprises became a concern to federal and state law enforcement officials who feared that Indian gambling would become the target of infiltration by organized crime or other criminal elements. Generally, the federal government was not involved directly in Indian gambling matters until a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision held bingo management contracts not approved by the Secretary of the Interior were null and void pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 81. In 1984, Congress began holding oversight hearings on Indian gambling because of federal and state concerns over the perceived lack of regulation and the potential for infiltration by criminal elements. |
California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians |
| The United States Supreme Court clarified the criminal-prohibitory/civil-regulatory distinction in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in 1987. The tribe operated high stakes bingo games and a card club on reservation lands near Palm Springs. California law, which permitted bingo and card games when operated by designated charitable organizations, placed significant limitations on both the prizes allowed and use of funds derived from the card games. Thus, some forms of gaming were permitted, subject to restrictions. California claimed it had authority, under Public Law 280, to enforce the State’s bingo laws on Indian lands. The State argued that enforcement of the bingo law on Indian land was within State authority because violators of the bingo law were subject to criminal penalties. Additionally, California argued that it did not regulate bingo, but prohibited high stakes games, thus it had the legal authority to prohibit activities on Indian lands located within the State that are prohibited elsewhere in the State. The Court enunciated a two-pronged test to determine whether a state law is criminal-prohibitory or civil-regulatory. A state law is prohibitory if, one, the gaming activities are contrary to state public policy and, two, state interest in regulating gaming outweighs the tribal benefits received through gaming. Specific to the case, the Court held that California’s level of gambling activities, which included a State lottery and pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing, was clearly sufficient to rule out the possibility of the Indian games being contrary to public policy. When balancing the State interest in regulating gaming in relation to tribal benefit, the Court held that California did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the difference in pots and wagers between statutorily restricted games and high stakes Indian games would result in the entrance of organized crime into Indian gambling operations, especially in comparison to the economic benefits the tribe could gain. Using a balancing test between federal, state and tribal interests, the Court found that tribes in states that otherwise allow gaming, have a right to conduct gaming on Indian lands unhindered by State regulation. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Cabazon, Congress began work to remedy what was then an uncertain situation. After Cabazon, there existed an urgency for the passage of a regulatory structure as there were no controls for gambling on reservation lands. The resulting legislation became the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA as it is more commonly known. |
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 |
| The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) contains a regulatory scheme designed to provide different levels of jurisdiction depending upon the type of gambling that is occurring on Indian lands. In developing the legislation, Congress defined the issue as 'how best to preserve the right of tribes to self-government while, at the same time, to protect both the tribes and the gaming public from unscrupulous persons.' These concerns were expressed by law enforcement officials, who indicated a need for federal and/or state regulation of gaming, in addition to, or instead of, tribal regulation. The authors of the legislation took the view that, 'it is the responsibility of the Congress, consistent with its plenary power over Indian affairs, to balance competing policy interests and to adjust, where appropriate, the jurisdictional framework for regulation of gaming on Indian lands. [The legislation] recognizes primary tribal jurisdiction over bingo and card parlor operations although oversight and certain other powers are vested in a federally established National Indian Gaming Commission. For Class III casino, pari-mutuel and slot machine gaming, the bill authorizes tribal governments and State governments to enter into tribal-State compacts to address regulatory and jurisdictional issues.' The jurisdictional framework for the regulation was the subject of a great deal of discussion. IGRA 'provides that in the exercise of its sovereign rights, unless a tribe affirmatively elects to have State laws and State jurisdiction extend to tribal lands, the Congress will not unilaterally [sic] impose or allow State jurisdiction on Indian lands for the regulation of Indian gaming activities.' IGRA divides gambling into three types and establishes a regulatory scheme for each. Class I gaming is described as 'social games played solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in as part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations.' Class I gaming is under the exclusive jurisdiction of Indian tribes and is not subject to the provisions of IGRA. Class II gaming is defined as 'the game of chance commonly known as bingo .. including (if played at the same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, instant bingo and other games similar to bingo.' Bingo games may also be conducted with 'electronic, computer or other technologic aids, but IGRA specifically excludes 'electronic or electromechanical facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machine of any kind' from Class II gaming. Non-banking card games are permissible under Class II gaming unless they are specifically prohibited by state law. Class II gaming is under tribal jurisdiction, subject to the provisions of IGRA and oversight of the National Indian Gaming Commission. States are not permitted to regulate any Class II gaming activity. Class III gaming is defined as all other types of gambling, including banked card games (e.g., roulette, craps and blackjack), slot machines, pari-mutuel wagering and jai alai. Electronic games of chance such as video poker, are considered Class III. Under IGRA, Class III gaming may only be conducted pursuant to the terms of a compact between a tribe and the state in which its lands are located. IGRA contains tight time parameters for the negotiation of an Indian gaming compact. Upon receiving a request to negotiate a gaming compact from a federally recognized Indian tribe, a state is required to commence good faith negotiations. If a state fails to enter negotiations or fails to negotiate in good-faith, IGRA authorizes the Indian tribe to file suit against the state in federal district court. If such a suit is filed, the district court is authorized to appoint a mediator who would, after a time period for the submission of gaming compacts by the State and Tribe, select one or the other and 'impose' that compact on the parties. Congress provided the tribes with federal court jurisdiction to enforce the 'good faith' provision and made the Secretary of the Interior the ultimate arbiter and regulator if an agreement could not be reached on a compact. This provision, granting federal courts jurisdiction over states, was later found to be in violation of the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In September 1991, the Seminole Tribe of Florida sued the State of Florida and its Governor in United States District Court, alleging refusal to enter into negotiations for a tribal/state compact. Florida moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that a suit in Federal court against the sovereign State of Florida was barred by the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution which states in part: 'The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or in equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States..' The 11th Circuit Court held that the suit by the Seminoles against the State of Florida was barred by the 11th Amendment. The Court’s decision also addressed the question of remedies available to the tribe when its judicial remedy is barred: 'The answer, gleaned from statute, is simple .. the tribe may file suit in the District Court. If the State pleads an 11th Amendment defense, the suit is dismissed and the tribe .. may notify the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior then may prescribe regulations governing Class III gaming on the tribe’s lands. This solution conforms with IGRA and serves to achieve Congress’ goals..' The Seminole tribe petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari on the main question, and the State of Florida cross-petitioned, seeking reversal of the 11th Amendment’s substitute remedy. In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the Supreme Court held that the suit against Florida was barred, saying: 'Notwithstanding Congress’ clear intent to abrogate the State’s sovereign immunity, the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress that power, and therefore cannot grant jurisdiction over a state that does not consent to be sued.' On the question of a substitute remedy, the Court merely noted that: 'We do not consider, and express no opinion upon that portion of the decision below that provides a substitute remedy for a tribe bringing suit.' However, one week later, the Supreme Court denied the cross petition of the State of Florida, leaving in place the lower court’s substitute remedy. The result of Seminole is that Indian tribes no longer have the ability to force recalcitrant States to negotiate over Indian gaming compacts. Congress has yet, through 1998, amended IGRA to provide tribes with a remedy when the eleventh amendment is interposed by States as an affirmative defense. |
Indian Gambling After Seminole Tribe v. Florida |
| In 1996 the Department of the Interior proposed new regulations to deal with Indian gaming compact negotiations between States and tribes when tribes have exhausted federal judicial remedies. The proposed rule would only apply where tribes assert that States have not acted in good faith in negotiating Class III gaming compacts, in States where Class III gaming otherwise occurs, and when States assert immunity from lawsuits to resolve the dispute. Congress has prevented the implementation of these rules by legislating a six month ban on Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt from approving Indian casinos without state approval under the 1998 federal budget agreement. |
NATIVE AMERICANS AND GAMBLING IN NEW YORK STATE |
| New York Compacts and Provisions Thus far, Class III gaming compacts have been reached between the State of New York and the Seneca Nation of Indians, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. On August 18, 2002, Governor George E. Pataki signed the compact with the Seneca Nation of Indians on behalf of the State of New York. The Seneca Niagara Casino opened on December 31, 2002; the Seneca Allegany Casino opened on May 1, 2004; and the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino on July 3, 2007. The first gaming compact was entered into by the State on April 16, 1993 when former Governor Mario M. Cuomo signed a compact with the Oneida Indian Nation of New York. The Oneida compact was subsequently approved by the Interior Department on June 4, 1993 and the Oneida Indian Nation opened Turning-Stone Casino Resort on July 20, 1993. Then Governor Cuomo also signed a compact with the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe on October 15, 1993 which received its federal approval on December 4, 1993. Akwesasne Mohawk Casino opened on April 12, 1999. Contained in each compact and appendices are standards and specifications for each game permitted to be played at an Indian casino, the rules and internal controls governing the operation of the gaming facility, procedures for certification and/or registration of gaming employees and companies transacting business with the casino and a system of mediation of disputes. The Board maintains a constant twenty-four hour presence within the gaming facilities of the Oneida Nation's Turning Stone Casino, the Seneca Niagara Casino, the Seneca Allegany Casino, the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino and the St. Regis Mohawk's Akwesasne Mohawk Casino. Board Gaming Inspectors ensure that gaming operations, such as dealing procedures, internal accounting and other controls, strictly conform to the applicable provisions of the Compact and their appendices. Gaming Inspectors are experienced, professional investigators who jointly monitor the gaming activities with the Nation or Tribal Gaming Inspectors, security officers and surveillance departments. Casino patrons may seek State Gaming Operations Inspectors to clarify rules of a game and for recourse after filing a complaint. The Certification and Registration Unit is responsible for the review and subsequent approval or denial of the applications submitted by all persons involved with Class III gaming in the State. No employee or manager may be employed by the casino operator unless the individual has been previously approved by the Board. The level of scrutiny to which employee applicants are subject depends upon the nature of their responsibilities at the casino and their degree of access and ability to influence gambling activities on the gaming floor. At a minimum, all applicants are fingerprinted and must undergo a background investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the New York State Police - Casino Detail. Pursuant to each gaming compact, enterprises or individuals wishing to conduct gaming-related business with a Class III gaming facility must be temporarily approved in advance by the Board and then undergo a thorough registration and licensing process. These enterprises range from sole proprietorships to publicly traded multi-national corporations. Each business applicant and their principal officers and employees must be fingerprinted and undergo an extensive background investigation conducted by the New York State Police - Casino Detail. At the conclusion of this background investigation, a decision is reached whether the business entity is suitable to conduct business with a casino. All of the State's regulatory expenses, for both personnel and equipment, are paid for or reimbursed by the regulated Indian Nation or Tribe as required under federal law. |
Casino Contact Information |
| Turning Stone Casino and Resort: 5218 Patrick Road Verona, New York 13478 Casino Switchboard: (800) 771-7711 / Available 24 hours a day www.turningstone.com Gaming Commission Office at Turning Stone Casino PO Box 808 Vernon, NY 13476 Phone: (315) 363-2803 / Available 24 hours a day Fax: (315) 361-6425 Akwesasne Mohawk Casino: Grand casino camping hinckley mn hours. Seneca Niagara Casino and Hotel: Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino: Seneca Allegany Casino and Hotel: Yellow Brick Road Casino: |