Record
Court opinion
1959-02-04
CourtListener (Free Law Project), opinion text
Tropicales, S. A. v. Drinkhouse, 15 Misc. 2d 425, 183 N.Y.S.2d 679 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1959): a Havana casino's check enforced in New York
A New York trial judge allowed a casino licensed by the Government of Cuba to collect a $12,000 check written for gambling credit in Havana in February 1956, holding that because the transaction took place in Cuba, 'The laws of Cuba prevail and not the laws of New York.'
- Date
- 1959-02-04
- Kind
- court-opinion
- Retrieved
- 2026-10-12
- Rights
- Opinion of a state court. Under the government edicts doctrine (Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020) judicial opinions are not copyrightable. The text is served by CourtListener.
Justice Jacob Markowitz of the New York Supreme Court decided the case on 4 February 1959, on testimony, the parties having waived findings of fact. The opinion states that the defendant, “in the early morning of February 24, 1956, visited a gambling casino, known as the Tropicals Night Club, S. A., in Havana, Cuba, which casino was duly licensed by the Government of Cuba.” After losing money he was extended credit, signed an I.O.U. for $12,000, and then gave a check for $12,000, which he later refused to pay.
The court notes “the accepted course of conduct in gambling casinos and clubs” of taking checks made out to “Cash” or to an individual of the casino’s management, and held that the casino, as owner of the check, was the proper plaintiff. To the defense that New York law barred recovery of a gambling debt, it answered: “This transaction took place in Cuba. The laws of Cuba prevail and not the laws of New York.” It followed an earlier decision, Tropicales v. Milora, 7 Misc 2d 281, and gave judgment for $12,000 with interest from 24 February 1956.
The opinion names the casino only as the “Tropicals Night Club, S. A.” and the plaintiff as Tropicales, S. A.; it does not use the name Tropicana or say who owned the company. It is filed here as a record of how a licensed Havana casino’s credit reached an American court. The defendant was a private individual and is named here only in the caption.
