Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Monticello Raceway Management, Inc. v. Concord Associates L.P. On January 25, 2011, Empire’s subsidiary, MRMI, filed a complaint in the Sullivan County Court against Concord, an affiliate of Louis R. Cappelli who was a significant stockholder. The lawsuit seeks amounts that MRMI believes is owed to it under an agreement between Concord, MRMI and the MHHA (the “2008 MHHA Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2008 MHHA 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, MRMI was to continue to pay to the MHHA 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, MRMI believes Concord owed it approximately $300,000 for the VGM Shortfall. Concord has contested its responsibility to make such VGM Shortfall payments to MRMI. In its Decision and Order, dated January 15, 2014, the Sullivan County Supreme Court awarded damages to MRMI in the approximate amount of $308,000 plus interest and costs. On February 4, 2014, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Third Division ("Third Division"). We will continue to aggressively pursue our claims in this lawsuit. 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 $500 million 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. MRMI was not named as a respondent. However, an Order was entered permitting intervention by MRMI as an intervenor respondent. On or about October 30, 2013, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal on the Third Department. On March 7, 2014, MRMI filed in the Third Department a motion to dismiss Concord's appeal. In response to the motion, Concord, by letter dated March 13, 2014, notified the Third Department that it was withdrawing its appeal and requested an Order be entered to that effect. As a result, the Court’s decision denying Concord’s Petition is now final and binding. 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

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

On January 25, 2011, Empire’s subsidiary, MRMI, filed a complaint in the Sullivan County Court against Concord, an affiliate of Louis R. Cappelli who was a significant stockholder. The lawsuit seeks amounts that MRMI believes is owed to it under an agreement between Concord, MRMI and the MHHA (the “2008 MHHA Agreement”). Pursuant to the 2008 MHHA 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, MRMI was to continue to pay to the MHHA 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, MRMI believes Concord owed it approximately $300,000 for the VGM Shortfall. Concord has contested its responsibility to make such VGM Shortfall payments to MRMI. In its Decision and Order, dated January 15, 2014, the Sullivan County Supreme Court awarded damages to MRMI in the approximate amount of $308,000 plus interest and costs. On February 4, 2014, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Third Division ("Third Division"). We will continue to aggressively pursue our claims in this lawsuit.

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 $500 million 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. MRMI was not named as a respondent. However, an Order was entered permitting intervention by MRMI as an intervenor respondent. On or about October 30, 2013, Concord filed a Notice of Appeal on the Third Department. On March 7, 2014, MRMI filed in the Third Department a motion to dismiss Concord's appeal. In response to the motion, Concord, by letter dated March 13, 2014, notified the Third Department that it was withdrawing its appeal and requested an Order be entered to that effect. As a result, the Court’s decision denying Concord’s Petition is now final and binding.

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.