Evolving Interpretations of Casino Detainment Guidelines: The Bulletin 22 Precedent

Introduction

The present Judgment in Pren Mrijaj v. Genting New York LLC, decided on February 25, 2025 by the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, addresses critical issues involving security operations in a casino environment and clarifies the application of regulatory guidance issued by the New York Gaming Commission. In this case, Plaintiff-Appellant Pren Mrijaj, representing himself and all similarly situated parties, challenges his detentions by Resorts World Casino New York City. The controversies center on whether the casino’s practice under Bulletin 22—particularly when detaining patrons suspected of damaging gaming equipment and requiring immediate restitution—violates legal or procedural requirements, including class certification and civil claims under General Business Law § 349.

The key issues involved whether the casino’s conduct during the detentions was consistent with the New York Gaming Commission’s regulations and guidelines, specifically Bulletin 22, and whether such conduct gave rise to valid claims of negligence, false imprisonment, and other torts. Moreover, the Plaintiff argued that the Bulletin 22 was improperly promulgated as it allegedly bypassed proper rulemaking procedures.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed its earlier orders dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and partially granting the Defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss portions of the complaint. The Court concluded, on the merits, that the Defendant’s actions, particularly the first detention, were in accordance with its regulatory obligations. Specifically, the decision noted that:

The Defendant’s detainment of the Plaintiff during the first incident was compliant with the New York Gaming Commission’s regulations, including the requirement to safeguard the casino’s property.
Bulletin 22, although not a standalone legal instrument, represents a reasonable interpretation of the existing regulation (9 NYCRR 5108.1[c][3]) and provides adequate guidelines for when and how to detain a patron suspected of reckless behavior.
The Plaintiff’s claims regarding due process violations, General Business Law § 349 violations, and other tort-related claims failed to meet the necessary thresholds as they did not sufficiently demonstrate that the Defendant’s actions were either “materially misleading” or unreasonable given the context of the Bulletin.
The Court also dismissed several causes of action (such as false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery) as barred by the statute of limitations.
Remaining claims related to the Plaintiff’s second detention were not granted class certification due to the lack of typicality among the claims of the proposed class members.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment draws upon several key precedents to bolster its reasoning. Notably:

Matter of Elcor Health Servs. v. Novello, 100 N.Y.2d 273 – This decision is cited for the proposition that administrative bulletins, such as Bulletin 22, can be deemed as reasonable interpretations of existing regulations even if their language extends beyond the literal wording (e.g., the imposition of restitution as an alternative to further detention). The court held that such interpretations are valid provided they integrate seamlessly with established regulatory frameworks.
Cubas v. Martinez, 8 N.Y.3d 611 – The reasoning in Cubas reinforces that guidelines provided by administrative bodies do not in themselves create new obligations but serve to clarify and enforce existing duties. This was pivotal in upholding Bulletin 22 as an instruction rather than an independent mandate.
Plavin v. Group Health Inc., 35 N.Y.3d 1 – Referenced in assessing the claims under General Business Law § 349, this case outlines the necessity for the plaintiff to demonstrate that conduct was “materially misleading.” The Plaintiff’s failure to articulate such misleading behavior resulted in the dismissal of the respective claims.
Additional references, such as those found in CPLR and prior decisions on class certification (e.g., Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc. and Egan v. Telomerase Activations Sciences, Inc.), helped clarify the standards for typicality and commonality required for class action status.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning is anchored on a balanced interpretation of both the regulatory framework governing video lottery gaming operations and the statutory mandates set forth by New York state laws. The reasoning comprises the following key points:

Adherence to Commission Guidelines: The Defendant’s operations were meticulously reviewed against the guidelines in Bulletin 22. The Court held that the security measures—including the protocol to offer immediate restitution and the subsequent reliance on law enforcement when restitution was denied—were entirely consistent with the rules laid out by the Gaming Commission.
Interpretation of Bulletin 22: The Bulletin’s requirement to offer immediate restitution for alleged damages was not interpreted as creating a new, independent obligation. Instead, it served as an operational guideline to expedite a patron’s release and minimize unnecessary detention. This interpretation was supported by prior decisions that allow administrative bulletins to serve as interpretative tools rather than independent regulatory mandates.
Due Process Considerations: The Court further examined the Plaintiff’s due process claims and concluded that there was no deprivation of liberty beyond what was authorized by Bulletin 22. In doing so, the Court distinguished between a procedural deviation and a substantive violation of due process, finding no infringement on the latter.
Class Certification: The factual dissimilarities between the Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of other alleged class members were given significant weight, leading the Court to deny class certification on the grounds of a lack of typicality. This element of the decision underscores the importance of commonality in class action litigation.

Impact on Future Cases

The Judgment is poised to have a substantial impact on how casinos and other gaming facilities enforce security measures in line with regulatory guidelines. Key potential impacts include:

Clarification of Bulletin 22’s Role: Future litigation involving similar issues will likely reference this Judgment as a foundational decision that confirms Bulletin 22 as an interpretative tool rather than a creator of new legal obligations. This could lead to more consistent enforcement of detention procedures across licensed facilities.
Guidance on Evidentiary Requirements: The emphasis on demonstrating “material misleading” conduct in claims under General Business Law § 349 sets a higher evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in similar disputes. This may influence future cases by necessitating more robust fact-specific analyses.
Operational Autonomy for Gaming Facilities: By reaffirming that security actions taken in conformance with Commission guidelines are legally defensible, the Decision may embolden gaming facilities to continue relying on established protocols without fear of incurring liability for actions taken in good faith under those guidelines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts and terminologies may initially appear complex. Here is a breakdown:

Bulletin 22: This is an administrative bulletin issued by the New York Gaming Commission. It provides detailed operational guidance (rather than creating new laws) on how casinos should handle the detention of patrons who are suspected of reckless or illegal activities—specifically addressing issues like restitution and engagement with law enforcement.
Due Process: A constitutional guarantee that ensures fair procedures are followed before depriving a person of liberty. In this case, the due process claim was evaluated against the backdrop of authorized detentions under the Commission’s guidelines.
Class Certification: The process by which a court determines if a lawsuit can proceed as a class action. A group of potential plaintiffs must show that their claims are similar enough—demonstrating typicality and common questions of law or fact—to justify collective litigation. Here, the Court found the Plaintiff’s remaining claims too unique to meet this standard.
Materially Misleading: A term used in consumer protection law (specifically under General Business Law § 349) that requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant’s actions were significantly deceptive in a way that impacted the plaintiff's decision or cause of harm.

Conclusion

In summary, the Judgment in Pren Mrijaj v. Genting New York LLC represents an important affirmation of the interplay between regulatory guidelines and the operational practices of gaming facilities. The Court conclusively held that the Defendant’s actions, specifically regarding the detention protocols outlined in Bulletin 22, were legally sound and in line with both existing regulations and administrative interpretations. The dismissal of claims related to due process violations, negligence, and the challenges to class certification underscores the stringent evidentiary requirements that plaintiffs must meet in similar matters.

This decision not only clarifies the practical application of gaming regulations but also sets a precedent that will influence future litigation in the realm of casino security practices and regulatory compliance. By reinforcing that administrative bulletins serve an interpretative function and do not create independent legal obligations, the Judgment provides greater operational certainty for gaming facilities and a clearer framework for evaluating claims arising from detainment practices.