You are here: / / Fraternity Not Liable for Injuries Caused by Intoxicated Person

Fraternity Not Liable for Injuries Caused by Intoxicated Person

The Second Department ruled that summary judgment should have been granted to a fraternity (SPFI) in an action brought pursuant the General Obligations Law 11-100 (creating a cause of action against those who provide alcohol to persons who subsequently cause injury). Plaintiff was injured in a fight that took place outside the fraternity house and there was no evidence the assailant (Poffenbarger) was provided with alcohol while in the fraternity house:

A defendant may be liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest that occurred on the defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to control the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control … . Here, the [fraternity] defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the negligence cause of action insofar as asserted against SPFI by showing that the plaintiff’s injuries occurred in an area not under SPFI’s control and, thus, that SPFI had no duty to supervise or control Poffenbarger’s conduct in that area … .

…Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the Sigma Pi defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-100 insofar as asserted against SPFI.

General Obligations Law § 11-100 provides:

“Any person who shall be injured in person, property, means of support or otherwise, by reason of the intoxication or impairment of ability of any person under the age of twenty-one years, whether resulting in his death or not, shall have a right of action to recover actual damages against any person who knowingly causes such intoxication or impairment of ability by unlawfully furnishing to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for such person with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such person was under the age of twenty-one years.” * * *

Here, the [fraternity] defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11-100 … . Specifically, the [fraternity] defendants established… that SPFI did not knowingly cause Poffenbarger’s intoxication or impairment of ability … . Holiday v Poffenbarger, 2013 NY Slip Op 06658, 2nd Dept 10-16-13

 

You might also like
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY THAT COMPLAINANT PICKED DEFENDANT OUT OF A LINEUP WAS INADMISSIBLE BOLSTERING, ERROR REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH STANDING; PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT; OUT OF STATE AFFIDAVIT LACKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY; NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE NECESSARY PARTIES SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRED A NOTICE OF CLAIM, AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO ALLEGE A FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS VOID PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 265-b; NOT CLEAR WHETHER DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WAS ACTING AS A CONSULTANT IN A MATTER CONCERNING A DISTRESSED HOME LOAN; IF SO, THE DEFENDANT CAN VOID THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
Election of Remedies Provision in Labor Law 740 Precluded Retaliation Action Based Upon an Alleged Violation of NYC Administrative Code
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Late Notice of Claim Denied—Infancy Alone Not Sufficient Reason to Allow... Police Officer Injured by Debris in City’s Vacant Lot Stated a Cause of Action...