|
|
|
|
|
In The News
Gerard Quinn, Esq. & the Case of the Banned Gambler
Ruling ends 'initial' confusion in banned gambler case
By DONALD WITTKOWSKI Staff Writer, 609-272-7258
Published Thursday June 26, 2008
ATLANTIC CITY - Sam DiGiralomo really isn't the mysterious gambler known as "S.D." He finally has the proof.
Interestingly, the businessman was on the losing end of a court battle to get it. DiGiralomo filed a motion in April asking a New Jersey appeals court to unseal confidential records that would reveal S.D.'s true identity.
The court denied his motion - but at the same time it noted that S.D. is not DiGiralomo.
"Intervenor Sam DiGiralomo was not the subject of the opinion," the court said in a brief ruling dated June 19 and made public Wednesday.
The "opinion" cited by the appeals panel was a ruling in another court case in March that involved the real S.D., a Delaware resident who once gambled at Atlantic City's casinos.
S.D. sued the New Jersey Casino Control Commission after it refused his request to remove his name from a confidential state program that allows people to voluntarily ban themselves from gambling. The court upheld the commission's authority to keep gamblers on the self-exclusion list.
S.D. signed up for a lifetime ban in the self-exclusion program in 2004 after he dropped a bundle playing craps at Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa. He later argued that he acted impulsively and had no idea that the gambling ban also extends to casinos outside New Jersey that are owned by Atlantic City gaming operators.
Meanwhile, DiGiralomo filed his motion asking the appeals court to open up the record in S.D.'s case. He argued that his reputation was harmed by suspicions that he was S.D. He cited "striking similarities" between the two, including having the same initials and the fact that he was a well-known Borgata gambler who had also enrolled in the self-exclusion program.
People who sign up for the self-exclusion list are assured of confidentiality. That's why S.D. has been publicly identified only by his initials.
S.D. objected to DiGiralomo's motion to reveal his identity. His attorney, Gerard W. Quinn, said the appeals court ruling reaffirms what he has been saying all along.
"S.D. is not Sam DiGiralomo, and that's what the court said as well," Quinn said.
Kenneth J. Isaacson, DiGiralomo's attorney, expressed disappointment that the appeals court did not unseal S.D.'s records, but added that his client finally has irrefutable proof that he is not the anonymous gambler.
"It's nice to have a piece of paper that he can show someone who is questioning whether Sam DiGiralomo and S.D. are the same person," Isaacson said of the court order.
DiGiralomo, a former resident of Mays Landing now living in Florida, owns publishing and freight companies. In court papers, he contended that his reputation could be damaged if people believed he was S.D. because S.D. has been portrayed as a "very angry man" who has been treated for anxiety.
The Casino Control Commission and sister regulatory agency the Division of Gaming Enforcement opposed DiGiralomo's motion to unseal S.D.'s records, saying it threatened to unravel the confidentiality guaranteed to everyone in the self-exclusion program. They were worried that it could discourage other people from signing up for the list.
Now in its seventh year, the self-exclusion program is designed to help people avoid the pitfalls of compulsive gambling. When gamblers volunteer for the program, they are given the option of being barred from casinos for a year, five years or a lifetime. S.D. chose a lifetime ban. DiGiralomo opted for one year when he signed up in 2003 and is no longer excluded.
In 2007, the Casino Control Commission refused S.D.'s request to remove himself from the lifetime ban, ruling that if it let him out of the self-exclusion program, it could open the floodgates for other gamblers to leave.
|
|
|
|
