Deep Djt
map-marker Atlantic City, New Jersey

Michael Sklar defends Casino against man comped was given 27 rum and cokes and falls of stool!

stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full stars-rating-full
Pennsylvania casino fined $25k after Oliver Reed’s ghost pops in BY Peter Amsel ON February 04, 2017 TAGS: MOUNT AIRY CASINO RESORT, PENNSYLVANIA mount-airy-casino-drunk-gamblerA Pennsylvania casino has been hit with a $25k fine for letting a customer gamble despite supplying him with an Oliver Reed-worthy drinks order. This week, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board publicly rebuked the operator of the Mount Airy Casino Resort for allowing a drunk customer to continue to play table top slots machines installed at the bar at which he was imbibing. The Board had harsh words for Mount Airy staff, who the board claimed served the customer 27 rum-and-cokes over a nine-hour period last October 7. The Board found it particularly alarming that the last 18 of these cocktails came after the unidentified cirrhosis candidate was already displaying “signs consistent with intoxication.” Three separate bartenders served the visibly drunk man, who eventually fell off his bar stool, then resisted casino security’s attempts to put him in an ambulance. State police were called but the man resisted arrest, landing him in County Prison for the night. The fine is only the third of its type in the 11 years since Pennsylvania opened its casino market. The fine was levied as part of a consent agreement, meaning Mount Airy chose not to contest the Board’s decision to impose the penalty. Board member Greg Fajt called the whole situation “pretty outrageous,” while Chairman David Barash wondered how the man “wasn’t in a coma.” Mount Airy attorney Michael Sklar admitted that the actions of the casino bartenders had been “unacceptable.” All three have been dismissed and the remaining bar staff have undergone retraining. The Board also hit the operators of the SugarHouse Casino in Philadelphia with a $15k fine for conducting improper credit promotions. There’s no word on how many drinks contributed to the SugarHouse operators failing to remember to notify the Board about the promotions in the required time period. Meanwhile, the Board also announced that the state’s 12 licensed brick and mortar casinos started 2017 off on the wrong foot, as January’s slots revenue totaled $180.3m, representing a 2.4% decline from January 2015’s total. Parx Casino was the unquestioned slots revenue leader despite a 2% year-on-year decline to $30.3m. Las Vegas Sands’ Sands Bethlehem was well back at $23.8m, but it was enough to keep Rivers Casino in third place with $21.5m. Michael Sklar Tax Appeals Attorney Michael Sklar Casino Attorney Atlantic City Defending Casinos against drunk gamblers MOB clients Arthur Sklar Lawyer****
View full review
Reason of review:
Bad quality

Preferred solution: Let the company propose a solution

Blayze Sjr
map-marker Camden, New Jersey

Unethical Lawyers Arthur Sklar Michael Sklar

Updated by user Apr 20, 2013

Michael Sklar Casino Lawyer

Updated by user Apr 20, 2013

Arthur Sklar

Atlantic City Casino Lawyers

Original review Apr 20, 2013
MULTIPLE ETHICS VIOLATIONS, CHANGING LEGAL DOCUMENTS, ABUSE OF THE COURTS, BULLYING ARTHUR SKLAR MICHAEL SKLAR These BULLY LAWYERS sent multiple emails and mail correspondences, pressuring my lawyer and myself to sign a document that only had changes on the FIRST PAGE. In response to these shifty, underhanded attempts to coerse my former attorney, and myself into signing a trust document(that I was directing) that was ONLY to have CHANGES on the FIRST page. The Sklar's reputation for altering documents is true. The changes were made to the above mentioned "Trust Agreement" on page THREE are so unethical and incomprehensible! Changes to #5 and page 3 (The Xxxx Life Insurance Trust) from xxx and xxx as Successor Trustee's to Leslie Sklar and Micheal Sklar as successor trustees. After multiple correspondents to Mr. Mcilwain and myself, over emphasizing and even highlighting the ONLY CHANGES to the trust on PAGE ONE. This shows exactly how unethical you operate as lawyers.
View full review


Court Nixes $629K Fee Award Against Atlantic City

David Gialanella


Text Size

Share Article

A $629,000 fee award to New Jersey firm Levine, Staller, Sklar, Chan & Brown for work done on behalf of Atlantic City government officials has been upended by a state appellate court. “The Law Division judge altogether ignored the city’s objections to the amounts the firm sought, except for the hourly rate,” and “did not even discuss the city’s objections,” the Appellate Division said in the April 21 ruling, which also reinstated the city’s counterclaims.

According to the opinion, the firm, located in Atlantic City, did work on behalf of city officials for several years—including former police Chief John Mooney III, former fire Chief Dennis Brooks, and former Assistant Business Administrator Domenic Cappella Sr.—in connection with at least 21 lawsuits. After a change in mayor and several in city solicitor, payments of the firm’s legal fees by the city became more sporadic and stopped completely after October 2009. Levine Staller attempted unsuccessfully to collect the fees and in October 2010 filed suit, accompanied by a certification by firm associate David Azotea, who purported to have worked on the matters, the opinion said. The city later filed counterclaims alleging, among other points, that the memoranda of understanding indemnifying Mooney and Brooks were never ratified by the city council and were obtained via corruption—specifically political contributions paid by the firm—and thus were void.

The counterclaims sought contribution and indemnification from Mooney and Brooks, disgorgement from the firm, and other relief, according to the opinion. Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kane dismissed the city’s counterclaim, deeming its opposition unopposed because it was filed nine days later. He also prohibited Levine Staller from seeking summary judgment on the basis of a contract existing between the firm and the city, though the firm later moved for summary judgment based on the equitable theory of quantum meruit, the opinion said. In December 2011, Kane granted the motion, and later entered judgment in Levine Staller’s favor for about $629,000 in unpaid fees, accepting the firm’s recited facts in Azotea’s certification.

Based on the city’s late opposition—because of a clerical error, it alleged—Kane held that the city missed its chance to dispute those facts, according to the opinion. The judge ruled that Levine Staller performed legal services in good faith from which the city benefited, and the bills, paid monthly, established a reasonable value for the services. Kane rejected Levine Staller’s claim that, under quantum meruit, it was entitled to payment on its standard, rather than discounted, hourly rate: a sum of about $857,000. But he did order payment of fees in the contractually agreed-upon rate, totaling about $629,000.

Atlantic City appealed, and Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez, Alexander Waugh Jr. and Harry Carroll, in a per curiam decision, reversed and reinstated the action. The panel disagreed with Kane’s decision to take Levine Staller’s facts as accepted, noting that Azotea admittedly performed minimal work on some of the matters documented in the certification. “A number of the allegations contained in that statement were general, no more than recitations of law,” the court said.

“Although specific fee amounts were requested for specific cases, these totals were not supported by documentary evidence.” The court also questioned a protective order issued by Kane prohibiting the city from deposing anyone at the firm other than John Donnelly and Mary Beth Clark. “If the city was limited to deposing Donnelly and Clark, because only they had relevant information, then surely Azotea’s lengthy statement of material facts could not have been ‘true to the best of [his] personal knowledge and belief’ as required by the summary judgment rule,” the court said. Kane, they said, also failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Atlantic City, and ignored its allegations that Levine Staller flouted local and state pay-to-play laws and obtained designations of counsel for Mooney and Brooks by illegitimate means. The panel called it “simply inexplicable” that Kane considered the firm’s summary judgment motion while staying such a motion by the city.

The issue of damages, the court added, should “at a minimum” have received a hearing, “given that the payor is a public entity and the substantial amount involved.” Kane “treated the firm’s submissions as though they constituted evidence of liquidated damages that only required mathematical calculations based solely on billing records,” but “by definition, the damages awarded in quantum meruit cannot be deemed to be liquidated damages, because such an award is based on the reasonable value of the services,” the court said. The panel noted that the city, even if it missed its chance to provide proofs, still is entitled to challenge the other side’s proofs, and Kane was required to reach findings and conclusions even if he deemed the firm’s motion unopposed. The judge “had alternatives that would have avoided consideration of the firm’s demand in a factual vacuum,” and abused his discretion by declining to consider the city’s opposition, the court said. “Certainly, sanctioning could have been imposed short of deciding the issue by default.” The court also reinstated the city’s counterclaim and third-party claims against Mooney and Brooks.

The panel rejected Levine Staller’s cross-appeals claiming that it was entitled to immediate payment, and at the higher hourly rate. Azotea, reached by phone, said he was “disappointed with the decision and the city’s actions.” “Our firm more than earned the fees,” Azotea said. “The city now has spent more defending this case than it would’ve spent on the fees that we earned.” Azotea, now a partner, added that it was “absolutely not true” that political contributions or acts of corruption precipitated legal work done for the city.

“We had authorizations [from city solicitors] for all the work that we did,” Azotea said. The city’s counsel, Susan Volkert of DeCotiis, FitzPatrick & Cole in Teaneck, said she and her client are “grateful for the court’s careful consideration” and “confident that the city is going to ultimately prevail on the full merits.” She added that the decision is “really cautionary to all practitioners—you have to get everything in writing.”


Michael D. Sklar, Max de Lys, Jane Forth, Donna****cd970c014e887456af970d-450wi

The acting days


Where was Eltra Corporation located? He was in the Philadelphia, South Jersey area.

This one is a huge ***.


Does anyone know if his the same Arthur Sklar who was employed by Eltra Corporation in the mid-seventies?


William J. Thompson - Archer & Greiner, P.C.

Drew A. Burach - Archer & Greiner, P.C

Arthur E. Sklar | Levine Staller Attorneys at Law

Michael D. Sklar | Levine Staller Attorneys at Law

Should all be ashamed of themselves professionally. They take advantage of helpless clients in Camden County. Bill Thompson and Drew Burach. HOMETOWN many innocent working people, run up law bills and keep jamming paperwork to the MULTIPLE JUDGES THAT RUN THROUGH THE DEFUNCT SYSTEM.(5 JUDGES-5 YEARS,my case alone). The court actually has an ":EARLY PRE SETTLEMENT PANEL" that all the "Hometown" attorneys get substantiate their own Law Firm's wants!" A complete "Inside Game". The Judge on my case actually honored William J. Thompson at my hearing as the committee chair???? The committee surprisingly went against me 100% and continued this 500k Law Bill(both sides),Levine Staller's, Arthur Sklar and Michael Sklar had an open checkbook with Archer and Greiner! America at its finest! Ruining people, killing the goose that lays the Golden eggs! This is a generational issue with many families that get ground up in our bureaucratic divorce system in Camden County NJ.


Blayze Sjr

We have to protect society from these types of people. A man should be able to get divorced and still be able to afford food for himself!!!

These loser abusers of power

Prey on people and the courtrooms are "hometown" playgrounds. Nice job Bill Thompson and Drew Burach the "Bill Captain". Arthur Sklar and Michaell Sklar orchestrated this catastrophe. $260,000 Bill!

Against a bankrupt ex husband. BRAVO!!!

Levine Staller Chan Sklar At

Atlantic City NJ . Archer and Greiner Haddonfield NJ

Blayze Sjr

Levine Staller and Archer and Greiner coerced and sent a lawyers fees bill up to Trenton for over 63k in Archer and Greiner's name to the judgements department and unethically let the Law Firm of Archer and Greiner from Haddnfield NJ to assume Sklar's debt. I wonder how many more lives have William Thompson and Drew Burach from Haddonfield NJ have ruined????

Bill Thompson and Drew Burach are the lawyers from Archer and Greiner who allowed Arthur Sklar to run a lawbill of 260k versus a bankrupt husband of Sklar's daughter.

They sued the husband for two million dollars and he was only worth 17k at the time of separation. FRAUD WAS NEVER PROVEN!

Roy S Goh


View more comments (8)

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content
  • PissedConsumer is on the Inc. 5000 list

For more information read Blog article