The article links to the Judge's opinion [0].
The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b):
"a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play
any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any
combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or
tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of
which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection
of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or
alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards,
loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." [1]
EDIT:
The Judges opinion [0] also makes it clear that he is following the precedent set in Golden
Nugget v. Gemaco, Inc. [2], where it was ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally used unshuffled decks. More specifically, without assigning fault to any party, the court argued that the game was not authorized into the Casino Control Act, thereby voiding the contract.
In this case, the judge argues that, although the specific statute of the CCA that was violated is different, the difference is not relevent to the arguement set forth in Golden Nugget, so the same result applies.
[0] http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pd...
[1] http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09...
[2] http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5...
The referenced section is 5:12-115(a)(2) and (b):
"a. It shall be unlawful: ... (2) Knowingly to deal, conduct, carry on, operate or expose for play any game or games played with cards, dice or any mechanical device, or any combination of games or devices, which have in any manner been marked or tampered with, or placed in a condition, or operated in a manner, the result of which tends to deceive the public or tends to alter the normal random selection of characteristics or the normal chance of the game which could determine or alter the result of the game.
b. It shall be unlawful knowingly to use or possess any marked cards, loaded dice, plugged or tampered with machines or devices." [1]
EDIT:
The Judges opinion [0] also makes it clear that he is following the precedent set in Golden Nugget v. Gemaco, Inc. [2], where it was ruled that a game was voided because the casino accidentally used unshuffled decks. More specifically, without assigning fault to any party, the court argued that the game was not authorized into the Casino Control Act, thereby voiding the contract.
In this case, the judge argues that, although the specific statute of the CCA that was violated is different, the difference is not relevent to the arguement set forth in Golden Nugget, so the same result applies.
[0] http://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ivey.pd...
[1] http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/act/docs/cca-article09...
[2] http://www.law360.com/articles/621651/casino-doesn-t-owe-1-5...