A renewed lawsuit from Queens residents targets the New York State Gaming Commission over its approval of a casino license for the Metropolitan Park project.
Petitioners said they plan to refile the case as early as Friday, following a late March dismissal. They intend to submit a motion to reargue the earlier ruling, stating that the initial filing in New York County was valid because the Gaming Commission made its decision there. A parallel filing is expected in Queens County.
The original lawsuit challenged the license issued to Queens Future LLC, the development group behind the $8 billion casino proposal led by Mets owner Steve Cohen and Hard Rock International.
On March 27, Judge Nicholas W. Moyne dismissed the case, stating that it had been filed in the wrong county. He later recused himself, citing “a tangential social relationship with a member of the respondent” that could “create the appearance of partiality”.
Petitioners said the dismissal was incorrect under state law and are seeking to reopen the matter through a new filing and legal motion.
Hearing procedures questioned
At the center of the case are claims related to the public hearing process connected to the license approval.
Court filings argue that hearings held last September limited opportunities for opponents to speak, reduced scheduled speaking times, and did not provide adequate access for non-English-speaking residents or individuals with work constraints.
The lawsuit also alleges potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Community Advisory Committee. It further claims that the Gaming Commission did not ensure the integrity of casino sponsors in accordance with legal requirements.
Project representatives cite participation and support
Karl Richett, a spokesperson for Metropolitan Park, said in a statement that the project has gone through an “unprecedented and transparent approval process with overwhelming support.”
He said the proposal received 89% backing across multiple levels of government, including six Queens community boards, the Queens borough president, and both city and state legislators.
Richett said the project complied with public input requirements. Community Advisory Committee hearings included 127 speakers, which he said exceeded participation levels seen in other approved casino projects. He added that at both hearings last September, most speakers supported the proposal, with about 85% of participants speaking in favor during one session.
Residents cite access and awareness concerns
Opponents disputed that characterization. Bernadette McCrann, a Flushing resident and lead petitioner, said she observed issues during the second Community Advisory Committee hearing on September 16.
She cited early line formations that allowed supporters of the proposed casino to secure speaking slots ahead of others. She also said updated hearing information was not consistently communicated in languages other than English.
“This is a working-class, immigrant community, and we are wary of the effects a casino will have on the neighborhood,” McCrann said.
Another petitioner, Jack Hu, said he followed the project for several years but did not learn about certain Community Advisory Committee hearings until after they had taken place.
“I didn’t even hear about the hearings,” Hu said. “There was no real effort to gauge the actual opinions of the community.”
Hu said the lawsuit also seeks to draw attention to what residents view as a biased process.
“We just want a fair public hearing process,” he said. “The process was manipulated through power, money, and influence. We obviously have our opinion, and the vast majority of the people in our communities, if you look at the polling numbers, are against the casino.”
A survey conducted last year by the MinKwon Center for Community Action found that 83.5% of Asian American respondents in Flushing said they were unaware of or unable to participate in the casino’s Community Advisory Committee process.
The Metropolitan Park proposal would redevelop about 50 acres near Citi Field into a mixed-use complex featuring a casino, hotel towers, and entertainment facilities. Since its introduction in 2023, the project has drawn opposition from some residents who cite concerns about land use, social effects, and community impact.
Despite these objections, the Gaming Commission voted unanimously in December to approve the license.
