Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 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, Kien Huat, Colin Au Fook Yew (“Au”) and Joseph D'Amato (“D’Amato”) and, together with the Company, Kien Huat and Au, the “Company Parties”) consummated the closing of a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Stanley Stephen Tollman (“Tollman”) and Bryanston Group, Inc. (“Bryanston Group” and, together with Tollman, 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 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. A trial date on the the issue of our damages has been set for October 9, 2013. 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 was 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. Oral argument on the motion to stay discovery was heard on June 27, 2013 after which the motion to stay discovery pending the determination of the Motion to Dismiss was granted. 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. Concord Associates, L.P. v. Town of Thompson On or about May 14, 2013, Concord filed an Article 78 Petition naming the Town of Thompson and its Town Board and Planning Board, and EPT as respondents. The proceeding challenges the actions and determinations made by the Town Board and the Planning Board regarding the project in Sullivan County. MRMI was not named as a respondent. However, on June 4, 2013, MRMI filed an Order to Show Cause, and supporting documentation, to enable MRMI to be an intervenor respondent in the matter. A hearing was held on June 12, 2013 and on June 18, 2013 the Order permitting intervention by MRMI as an intervenor respondent was entered. Respondents filed the answering papers on July 23, 2013, Concord's reply is due on August 14, 2013. 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, Kien Huat, Colin Au Fook Yew (“Au”) and Joseph D'Amato (“D’Amato”) and, together with the Company, Kien Huat and Au, the “Company Parties”) consummated the closing of a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Stanley Stephen Tollman (“Tollman”) and Bryanston Group, Inc. (“Bryanston Group” and, together with Tollman, 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 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. A trial date on the the issue of our damages has been set for October 9, 2013.

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 was 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. Oral argument on the motion to stay discovery was heard on June 27, 2013 after which the motion to stay discovery pending the determination of the Motion to Dismiss was granted. 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.

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

On or about May 14, 2013, Concord filed an Article 78 Petition naming the Town of Thompson and its Town Board and Planning Board, and EPT as respondents. The proceeding challenges the actions and determinations made by the Town Board and the Planning Board regarding the project in Sullivan County. MRMI was not named as a respondent. However, on June 4, 2013, MRMI filed an Order to Show Cause, and supporting documentation, to enable MRMI to be an intervenor respondent in the matter. A hearing was held on June 12, 2013 and on June 18, 2013 the Order permitting intervention by MRMI as an intervenor respondent was entered. Respondents filed the answering papers on July 23, 2013, Concord's reply is due on August 14, 2013. 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.