Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Bryanston Group v. Empire Resorts, Inc. A complaint has been filed in the Supreme Court of The State of New York, New York County (the “New York County Court”) on or about July 12, 2010, against us. The lawsuit arises out of a recapitalization agreement entered into on December 10, 2002 ("Recapitalization Agreement"), pursuant to which we issued Series E preferred stock to Bryanston Group and Stanley Tollman, among others. The complaint is brought by Bryanston Group and Stanley Tollman alleging that we breached the terms of the Recapitalization Agreement by (i) failing to use the funds from the 2009 investment by Kien Huat to redeem the Series E preferred shares and pay dividends on the shares; and (ii) paying in excess of $1 million per year in operating expenses (including paying the settlement to our former chief executive officer, Joseph Bernstein) while not redeeming the Series E preferred shares and paying dividends on the shares. The plaintiffs had sought a preliminary injunction to require us to put into escrow funds sufficient to pay the purchase price for the redemption of the Series E shares and the dividends. On August 20, 2010, the New York County Court denied plaintiffs' request. On September 24, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. The Court denied our motion to dismiss the original complaint on March 28, 2011. We filed an answer to the original complaint on our about May 12, 2011. On July 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed and served an amended complaint. The amended complaint, in addition to the allegations from the original complaint, alleges that we breached the terms of the recapitalization agreement in two additional ways by (i) failing to use the funds from the 2004 issuance of senior secured convertible notes to redeem the Series E preferred shares and pay dividends; and (ii) failing to use the funds from the 2010 investment by Kien Huat to redeem the Series E preferred shares and pay dividends. We filed our answer to the amended complaint on or about July 23, 2012. Discovery concluded on January 21, 2013. We filed our motion for summary judgment on March 7, 2013, and plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on the same date. Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment is scheduled for June 24, 2013. While we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, we believe the lawsuit is without merit and we will aggressively defend our interests. Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. v. Concord Associates L.P. On January 25, 2011, our subsidiary, MRMI, filed a complaint in the Sullivan County Court against Concord, an affiliate of Louis R. Cappelli who is a significant stockholder. The lawsuit seeks amounts that we believe are owed to us under an agreement between Concord, MRMI and the Monticello Harness Horsemen’s Association, Inc. (the “Horsemen’s Agreement”). Pursuant to the Horsemen’s Agreement, until the earlier to occur of the commencement of operations at the gaming facilities to be developed by Concord at the site of the former Concord hotel and former Concord resort or July 31, 2011, we were to continue to pay to the Monticello Harness Horsemen’s Association, Inc. 8.75% of the net win from VGM activities at Monticello Casino and Raceway, and Concord was to pay the difference, if any, between $5 million per year and 8.75% of the net win from VGM activities (“VGM Shortfall”) during such period. As of December 31, 2010, we believe Concord owed us approximately $300,000 for the VGM Shortfall. Concord has contested its responsibility to make such VGM Shortfall payments to us and on March 10, 2011 Concord filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that there was no shortfall because the term of the obligation was a two years period, not annually. We filed reply affirmations and requested that the Judge treat Concord’s motion and our cross-motion as summary judgment motions. On June 23, 2011, the Court advised the parties that it would treat our cross-motion as a summary judgment motion. MRMI filed its reply affirmation on August 8, 2011. On November 4, 2011, the Judge denied Concord’s motion to dismiss, and denied MRMI’s summary judgment motion without prejudice to renew after conducting pre-trial discovery. On December 8, 2011, MRMI filed an appeal of the denial of the summary judgment motion and on December 9, 2011, Concord filed a cross-appeal for the portion of the decision that denied Concord’s motion to dismiss. MRMI and Concord filed Appellate Briefs in or about December 2012. The Appellate Division in Albany heard the oral argument on February 7, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the Appellate Court ordered the reversal of the denial of our summary judgment and awarded our cross motion to the extent of awarding partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action. Concord Associates, L.P. v. Entertainment Properties Trust On March 7, 2012, Concord and various affiliates filed a complaint against Entertainment Properties Trust ("EPR") and us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The lawsuit arises out of our exclusivity agreement and option agreement with EPT to develop the site of the EPT Property located in Sullivan County, New York. Following a pre-motion conference held April 25, 2012, Concord and its affiliates filed an amended complaint on June 18, 2012, against EPR and us, and added Genting New York LLC and Kien Huat Realty III Limited, as defendants. The amended complaint asserts the same federal antitrust claims and seeks the same damages as in the original complaint, alleging that all defendants have obstructed and delayed Concord from establishing a harness racetrack and VGM facility at the site of the former Concord Hotel in the Town of Thompson, New York, that would compete with other “reasonably accessible casinos/racinos for legal casino gaming business” and other “reasonably accessible casino hotel and resort facilities for tourism patrons” in the “New York-Northeastern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area.” As in the original complaint, Concord's amended complaint further asserts that we have monopolized the market for "gaming and racing” in the “Catskills Region” and have tortiously interfered with EPR's performance of its contracts and business relations with Concord. The amended complaint seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $500 million (subject to automatic trebling under federal antitrust laws), unspecified punitive damages with respect to Concord's tortious interference claims, and permanent injunctive relief against EPT and MRMI agreements. By Stipulation and Order entered by the SDNY on July 6, 2012, we shall answer, move or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by July 25, 2012. On July 25, 2012, all defendants submitted to the court requests for a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Concord submitted a letter in response to the defendant letters. On September 13, 2012, on the eve of the pre-motion for summary judgment conference, Concord notified the Court that it had retained new counsel (with one of the law firms continuing as counsel) and requested that the conference be adjourned so that Concord could file a second amended complaint. The Court denied the request to adjourn. On September 25, 2012, the defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss and on October 25, 2012 Concord filed its opposition. Defendants' filed the reply on November 8, 2012. On November 29, 2012, Concord submitted to the court a request for a pre-motion conference to permit them to file a second amended complaint. Defendants submitted letters in opposition on December 4, 2012. On March 26, 2013, the Court referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge for general pre-trial matters including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive motions and settlement. On April 29, 2013 we filed a motion to stay discovery. The response was filed on May 10, 2013 and our reply is due May 16, 2013. The SDNY heard the oral argument for the Motion to Dismiss on May 8, 2013 and Concord's request to file a second amended complaint was discussed at that time. Although we are continuing to assess our available options in terms of responding to this complaint, we believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will aggressively defend our interests. Bryanston Group v. Kien Huat Realty III, Limited On December 27, 2012, Bryanston Group (not Stanley Tollman), which holds Series E Preferred shares of Empire, filed a complaint against Kien Huat, our majority stockholder, and Colin Au, Joseph D'Amato and Emanuel Pearlman in their individual capacities and as our directors, in the SDNY. With respect to our directors, the shareholder complaint alleges that Messrs. Au, D'Amato and Pearlman breached their fiduciary duties to Bryanston by approving a rights offering consummated on May 20, 2011, and not providing Bryanston with the right to participate in such rights offering. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Recapitalization Agreement gives Bryanston "priority over Defendants to the payment of dividends, redemption and/or satisfaction of shares" from Empire's New Available Cash Flow (as defined in the Recapitalization Agreement). The complaint also asserts a variety of related claims against Kien Huat. On February 25, 2013, we sent a pre-motion letter to Bryanston. The parties thereafter submitted a stipulation for the Court to be So Ordered that provides Bryanston the ability to amend its complaint on or before March 29, 2013, and gives defendants until May 28, 2013 to file a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Kien Huat, Au and D'Amato and Empire as a nominal defendant. The amended complaint alleges that Au breached his fiduciary duty to Bryanston by providing materials for a corporate opportunity to Kien Huat thus aiding Kien Huat in usurping a corporate opportunity from Empire and that D'Amato breached his fiduciary duty to Bryanston by approving a bonus plan for Empire executives. The amended complaint asserts a variety of related claims against Kien Huat. Although we are continuing to assess our available options in terms of responding to this complaint, we believe this lawsuit is without merit. Other Proceedings We are a party from time to time to various other legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these other matters will not have a material and adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Bryanston Group v. Empire Resorts, Inc.

A complaint has been filed in the Supreme Court of The State of New York, New York County (the “New York County Court”) on or about July 12, 2010, against us. The lawsuit arises out of a recapitalization agreement entered into on December 10, 2002 ("Recapitalization Agreement"), pursuant to which we issued Series E preferred stock to Bryanston Group and Stanley Tollman, among others. The complaint is brought by Bryanston Group and Stanley Tollman alleging that we breached the terms of the Recapitalization Agreement by (i) failing to use the funds from the 2009 investment by Kien Huat to redeem the Series E preferred shares and pay dividends on the shares; and (ii) paying in excess of $1 million per year in operating expenses (including paying the settlement to our former chief executive officer, Joseph Bernstein) while not redeeming the Series E preferred shares and paying dividends on the shares. The plaintiffs had sought a preliminary injunction to require us to put into escrow funds sufficient to pay the purchase price for the redemption of the Series E shares and the dividends. On August 20, 2010, the New York County Court denied plaintiffs' request. On September 24, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint. The Court denied our motion to dismiss the original complaint on March 28, 2011. We filed an answer to the original complaint on our about May 12, 2011. On July 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed and served an amended complaint. The amended complaint, in addition to the allegations from the original complaint, alleges that we breached the terms of the recapitalization agreement in two additional ways by (i) failing to use the funds from the 2004 issuance of senior secured convertible notes to redeem the Series E preferred shares and pay dividends; and (ii) failing to use the funds from the 2010 investment by Kien Huat to redeem the Series E preferred shares and pay dividends. We filed our answer to the amended complaint on or about July 23, 2012. Discovery concluded on January 21, 2013. We filed our motion for summary judgment on March 7, 2013, and plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment on the same date. Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment is scheduled for June 24, 2013. While we cannot predict the outcome of this litigation, we believe the lawsuit is without merit and we will aggressively defend our interests.

Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. v. Concord Associates L.P.

On January 25, 2011, our subsidiary, MRMI, filed a complaint in the Sullivan County Court against Concord, an affiliate of Louis R. Cappelli who is a significant stockholder. The lawsuit seeks amounts that we believe are owed to us under an agreement between Concord, MRMI and the Monticello Harness Horsemen’s Association, Inc. (the “Horsemen’s Agreement”). Pursuant to the Horsemen’s Agreement, until the earlier to occur of the commencement of operations at the gaming facilities to be developed by Concord at the site of the former Concord hotel and former Concord resort or July 31, 2011, we were to continue to pay to the Monticello Harness Horsemen’s Association, Inc. 8.75% of the net win from VGM activities at Monticello Casino and Raceway, and Concord was to pay the difference, if any, between $5 million per year and 8.75% of the net win from VGM activities (“VGM Shortfall”) during such period. As of December 31, 2010, we believe Concord owed us approximately $300,000 for the VGM Shortfall. Concord has contested its responsibility to make such VGM Shortfall payments to us and on March 10, 2011 Concord filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that there was no shortfall because the term of the obligation was a two years period, not annually. We filed reply affirmations and requested that the Judge treat Concord’s motion and our cross-motion as summary judgment motions. On June 23, 2011, the Court advised the parties that it would treat our cross-motion as a summary judgment motion. MRMI filed its reply affirmation on August 8, 2011. On November 4, 2011, the Judge denied Concord’s motion to dismiss, and denied MRMI’s summary judgment motion without prejudice to renew after conducting pre-trial discovery. On December 8, 2011, MRMI filed an appeal of the denial of the summary judgment motion and on December 9, 2011, Concord filed a cross-appeal for the portion of the decision that denied Concord’s motion to dismiss. MRMI and Concord filed Appellate Briefs in or about December 2012. The Appellate Division in Albany heard the oral argument on February 7, 2013. On March 28, 2013, the Appellate Court ordered the reversal of the denial of our summary judgment and awarded our cross motion to the extent of awarding partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action.

Concord Associates, L.P. v. Entertainment Properties Trust

On March 7, 2012, Concord and various affiliates filed a complaint against Entertainment Properties Trust ("EPR") and us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The lawsuit arises out of our exclusivity agreement and option agreement with EPT to develop the site of the EPT Property located in Sullivan County, New York. Following a pre-motion conference held April 25, 2012, Concord and its affiliates filed an amended complaint on June 18, 2012, against EPR and us, and added Genting New York LLC and Kien Huat Realty III Limited, as defendants. The amended complaint asserts the same federal antitrust claims and seeks the same damages as in the original complaint, alleging that all defendants have obstructed and delayed Concord from establishing a harness racetrack and VGM facility at the site of the former Concord Hotel in the Town of Thompson, New York, that would compete with other “reasonably accessible casinos/racinos for legal casino gaming business” and other “reasonably accessible casino hotel and resort facilities for tourism patrons” in the “New York-Northeastern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area.” As in the original complaint, Concord's amended complaint further asserts that we have monopolized the market for "gaming and racing” in the “Catskills Region” and have tortiously interfered with EPR's performance of its contracts and business relations with Concord. The amended complaint seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than $500 million (subject to automatic trebling under federal antitrust laws), unspecified punitive damages with respect to Concord's tortious interference claims, and permanent injunctive relief against EPT and MRMI agreements. By Stipulation and Order entered by the SDNY on July 6, 2012, we shall answer, move or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by July 25, 2012. On July 25, 2012, all defendants submitted to the court requests for a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Concord submitted a letter in response to the defendant letters. On September 13, 2012, on the eve of the pre-motion for summary judgment conference, Concord notified the Court that it had retained new counsel (with one of the law firms continuing as counsel) and requested that the conference be adjourned so that Concord could file a second amended complaint. The Court denied the request to adjourn. On September 25, 2012, the defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss and on October 25, 2012 Concord filed its opposition. Defendants' filed the reply on November 8, 2012. On November 29, 2012, Concord submitted to the court a request for a pre-motion conference to permit them to file a second amended complaint. Defendants submitted letters in opposition on December 4, 2012. On March 26, 2013, the Court referred the matter to a Magistrate Judge for general pre-trial matters including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive motions and settlement. On April 29, 2013 we filed a motion to stay discovery. The response was filed on May 10, 2013 and our reply is due May 16, 2013. The SDNY heard the oral argument for the Motion to Dismiss on May 8, 2013 and Concord's request to file a second amended complaint was discussed at that time. Although we are continuing to assess our available options in terms of responding to this complaint, we believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will aggressively defend our interests.

Bryanston Group v. Kien Huat Realty III, Limited

On December 27, 2012, Bryanston Group (not Stanley Tollman), which holds Series E Preferred shares of Empire, filed a complaint against Kien Huat, our majority stockholder, and Colin Au, Joseph D'Amato and Emanuel Pearlman in their individual capacities and as our directors, in the SDNY. With respect to our directors, the shareholder complaint alleges that Messrs. Au, D'Amato and Pearlman breached their fiduciary duties to Bryanston by approving a rights offering consummated on May 20, 2011, and not providing Bryanston with the right to participate in such rights offering. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Recapitalization Agreement gives Bryanston "priority over Defendants to the payment of dividends, redemption and/or satisfaction of shares" from Empire's New Available Cash Flow (as defined in the Recapitalization Agreement). The complaint also asserts a variety of related claims against Kien Huat. On February 25, 2013, we sent a pre-motion letter to Bryanston. The parties thereafter submitted a stipulation for the Court to be So Ordered that provides Bryanston the ability to amend its complaint on or before March 29, 2013, and gives defendants until May 28, 2013 to file a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Kien Huat, Au and D'Amato and Empire as a nominal defendant. The amended complaint alleges that Au breached his fiduciary duty to Bryanston by providing materials for a corporate opportunity to Kien Huat thus aiding Kien Huat in usurping a corporate opportunity from Empire and that D'Amato breached his fiduciary duty to Bryanston by approving a bonus plan for Empire executives. The amended complaint asserts a variety of related claims against Kien Huat. Although we are continuing to assess our available options in terms of responding to this complaint, we believe this lawsuit is without merit.

Other Proceedings

We are a party from time to time to various other legal actions that arise in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these other matters will not have a material and adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.