Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Bryanston Group v. Empire Resorts, Inc. and Bryanston Group v. Kien Huat Realty III, Limited Effective as of June 30, 2013 (the “Closing Date”), the Company Parties consummated the closing of a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Bryanston Parties relating to the actions entitled Bryanston Group v. Empire Resorts, Inc. pending in the New York Supreme Count (the "New York Court Proceeding") and Bryanston Group v. Kien Huat Realty III, Limited pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Federal Court Proceeding"). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company Parties and the Bryanston Parties agreed to the settlement of claims relating to shares of Series E Preferred Stock of the Company (the “Preferred Stock”) held by the Bryanston Parties and that certain Recapitalization Agreement, dated December 10, 2002, by and between, among others, the Bryanston Parties and a predecessor to the Company (the “Recapitalization Agreement”), pursuant to which the Bryanston Parties acquired the Preferred Stock. On the Closing Date, the Recapitalization Agreement terminated and ceased to have any further force and effect as between the Bryanston Parties and the Company. In consideration for the mutual release of all claims, Empire agreed to redeem, purchase and acquire the Preferred Stock from the Bryanston Parties in accordance with an agreed upon timeline and payment schedule (as set forth in Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings) and based upon the closing by the Company of third party financing in an aggregate amount sufficient to enable the Company to complete the construction of the Casino Project. As conditions to closing, (i) Bryanston Group delivered a voting proxy on the Preferred Stock they hold to designated officers of the Company, pursuant to which those officers have agreed not to vote the shares; (ii) the parties executed joint stipulations and orders dismissing the New York Court Proceeding and the Federal Court Proceeding and extinguishing all claims of the Bryanston Parties that have been or could have been asserted against the Company Parties or any affiliated persons; (iii) the Board of Directors of Bryanston Group approved the Settlement Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby before June 30, 2013; and (iv) the Settlement Agreement was reviewed by the NYSGC. The Federal Court Proceeding was dismissed on June 28, 2013 and the New York Court Proceeding was dismissed on June 26, 2013. The parties further agreed that, in the event of a voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company, Bryanston’s Preferred Stock would retain all rights, rank and priority as enumerated in the Certificate of Designations, Powers, Preferences and Rights of the Series E Preferred Stock. In the event the Company fails to make a payment due and owing to the Bryanston Parties from funds legally available to effect such payment, the Company shall have 45 days to cure such default. If such default is not cured within 45 days, the Company will be obligated to redeem the balance of the Preferred Stock held by Bryanston at the Liquidation Value and Accrued Dividends from funds legally available to effect such payment. 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 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 contested its responsibility to make such VGM Shortfall payments to us. Both parties filed appeals. 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. A trial date on the the issue of our damages has been set for December 11, 2013. Concord Associates, L.P. v. Entertainment Properties Trust On September 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) granted Motions to Dismiss filed by us and all other defendants. This lawsuit was filed in March 2012, by Concord and various affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and asserted in an amended complaint various federal antitrust claims against us, EPR, EPT, Genting NY LLC and Kien Huat. 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. Concord brought federal antitrust claims alleging conspiracy in restraint of trade, conspiracy to monopolize and monopolization. Concord also brought state law claims for tortious interference with contract and business relations. Concord sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than subject to automatic trebling under federal antitrust laws), unspecified punitive damages and permanent injunctive relief. In its decision, the SDNY dismissed Concord’s federal antitrust claims with prejudice and dismissed Concord's state law claims without prejudice. On October 2, 2013, Concord filed a Motion for Reconsideration and on October 18, 2013, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal. On October 22, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Notice of Stay of Appeal pending the outcome of the Motion for Reconsideration. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will aggressively defend our interests. Concord Associates, L.P. v. Town of Thompson On October 2, 2013, the New York Supreme Court in Sullivan County (the “Court”) denied in its entirety the Article 78 petition (the “Petition”) filed by Concord on or about May 14, 2013. The Petition named the Town of Thompson and its Town Board and Planning Board, and EPT as respondents. The proceeding challenged the actions and determinations made by the Town Board and the Planning Board regarding the Project in Sullivan County. On or about October 30, 2013, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal. We believe this proceeding is without merit and we will aggressively protect our interests. 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. and Bryanston Group v. Kien Huat Realty III, Limited

Effective as of June 30, 2013 (the “Closing Date”), the Company Parties consummated the closing of a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Bryanston Parties relating to the actions entitled Bryanston Group v. Empire Resorts, Inc. pending in the New York Supreme Count (the "New York Court Proceeding") and Bryanston Group v. Kien Huat Realty III, Limited pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Federal Court Proceeding"). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company Parties and the Bryanston Parties agreed to the settlement of claims relating to shares of Series E Preferred Stock of the Company (the “Preferred Stock”) held by the Bryanston Parties and that certain Recapitalization Agreement, dated December 10, 2002, by and between, among others, the Bryanston Parties and a predecessor to the Company (the “Recapitalization Agreement”), pursuant to which the Bryanston Parties acquired the Preferred Stock. On the Closing Date, the Recapitalization Agreement terminated and ceased to have any further force and effect as between the Bryanston Parties and the Company.

In consideration for the mutual release of all claims, Empire agreed to redeem, purchase and acquire the Preferred Stock from the Bryanston Parties in accordance with an agreed upon timeline and payment schedule (as set forth in Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings) and based upon the closing by the Company of third party financing in an aggregate amount sufficient to enable the Company to complete the construction of the Casino Project.

As conditions to closing, (i) Bryanston Group delivered a voting proxy on the Preferred Stock they hold to designated officers of the Company, pursuant to which those officers have agreed not to vote the shares; (ii) the parties executed joint stipulations and orders dismissing the New York Court Proceeding and the Federal Court Proceeding and extinguishing all claims of the Bryanston Parties that have been or could have been asserted against the Company Parties or any affiliated persons; (iii) the Board of Directors of Bryanston Group approved the Settlement Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby before June 30, 2013; and (iv) the Settlement Agreement was reviewed by the NYSGC. The Federal Court Proceeding was dismissed on June 28, 2013 and the New York Court Proceeding was dismissed on June 26, 2013.

The parties further agreed that, in the event of a voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding-up of the Company, Bryanston’s Preferred Stock would retain all rights, rank and priority as enumerated in the Certificate of Designations, Powers, Preferences and Rights of the Series E Preferred Stock. In the event the Company fails to make a payment due and owing to the Bryanston Parties from funds legally available to effect such payment, the Company shall have 45 days to cure such default. If such default is not cured within 45 days, the Company will be obligated to redeem the balance of the Preferred Stock held by Bryanston at the Liquidation Value and Accrued Dividends from funds legally available to effect such payment.

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 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 contested its responsibility to make such VGM Shortfall payments to us. Both parties filed appeals. 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. A trial date on the the issue of our damages has been set for December 11, 2013.

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

On September 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) granted Motions to Dismiss filed by us and all other defendants. This lawsuit was filed in March 2012, by Concord and various affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and asserted in an amended complaint various federal antitrust claims against us, EPR, EPT, Genting NY LLC and Kien Huat. 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. Concord brought federal antitrust claims alleging conspiracy in restraint of trade, conspiracy to monopolize and monopolization. Concord also brought state law claims for tortious interference with contract and business relations. Concord sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial but not less than subject to automatic trebling under federal antitrust laws), unspecified punitive damages and permanent injunctive relief. In its decision, the SDNY dismissed Concord’s federal antitrust claims with prejudice and dismissed Concord's state law claims without prejudice. On October 2, 2013, Concord filed a Motion for Reconsideration and on October 18, 2013, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal. On October 22, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a Notice of Stay of Appeal pending the outcome of the Motion for Reconsideration. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will aggressively defend our interests.

Concord Associates, L.P. v. Town of Thompson

On October 2, 2013, the New York Supreme Court in Sullivan County (the “Court”) denied in its entirety the Article 78 petition (the “Petition”) filed by Concord on or about May 14, 2013. The Petition named the Town of Thompson and its Town Board and Planning Board, and EPT as respondents. The proceeding challenged the actions and determinations made by the Town Board and the Planning Board regarding the Project in Sullivan County. On or about October 30, 2013, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal. We believe this proceeding is without merit and we will aggressively protect our interests.

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.