Harris v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
575 N.Y.S.2d 672 (1991)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
New York law prohibited lotteries and other forms of gambling, with exceptions for only state-operated lotteries, certain types of horserace-betting, and chance-based games run by local-government-affiliated charitable organizations in which individual prizes did not exceed $250 and aggregate prizes did not exceed $1,000. Ray Harris (plaintiff) operated a pharmacy in West Hempstead, New York. In May 1986, one of Harris’s customers came to the pharmacy on behalf of the Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. (EOC) (defendant) to sell raffle tickets for a 1986 Chevrolet Camaro. Proceeds from the raffle were to be used for a scholarship fund. Harris purchased five raffle tickets for $2 each. Harris stamped the tickets with a rubber stamp that identified Harris’s corporation, B.W. Harris, Inc. (the corporation) (plaintiff), as the ticket purchaser. Harris subsequently sold his pharmacy and went on vacation. While Harris was on vacation, the EOC held the raffle drawing and selected one of Harris’s tickets as the winner. Harris tried to claim his prize when he returned from vacation, but the EOC had already returned the Camaro to the dealer in exchange for a refund that the EOC added to the scholarship fund. The EOC and Harris disputed the date that Harris had tried to claim the car, and the EOC had no documentation regarding when the car was returned to the dealer. Harris and the corporation sued the EOC, seeking the Camaro or its value. The EOC asserted the defense that the raffle was an illegal lottery, which meant that the EOC could not be compelled to award the prize or its value to Harris and the corporation. Harris asserted that he had not made an illegal wager, but rather had made a $10 charitable contribution to the EOC in return for entry into a raffle that was raising funds for a worthy cause. The trial court rejected the EOC’s illegality defense, and a jury ultimately awarded Harris and the corporation $15,000. An appellate court reduced the award to $20 (i.e., twice the amount of Harris’s wager) on the grounds that the raffle was illegal and void. The corporation appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.