You are here: / / A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars...

A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar

The Second Department determined a bar, defendant Mulinos, could be liable under the Dram Shop Act even though the alcohol consumed at Mulinos would have metabolized by the time of the vehicle accident had plaintiff’s decedent not consumed more alcohol. After leaving Mulinos, however, plaintiff’s decedent went to another bar, defendant Trotters Tavern, and was served more alcohol. A jury could have found the alcohol served at Mulinos contributed to his intoxication as he continued drinking at Trotters Tavern. The Second Department determined plaintiff had made out a prima facie case at trial that both bars were liable under the Dram Shop Act and, therefore, the trial judge should not have granted the defendants’ motions for judgments dismissing the complaint as a matter of law:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, accepting the evidence presented at trial by the plaintiff as true, and according it every favorable inference, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that there was a “reasonable or practical connection” between the alleged unlawful sale of alcohol at Mulinos and the resulting damages … . Although the Medical Examiner acknowledged that the alcohol that Sullivan consumed at Mulinos would have been metabolized by the time of the accident, “assum[ing] that [he] did not consume anymore alcohol that evening,” she also opined, based on the testimony of the witnesses and Sullivan’s blood alcohol content at the time of the accident, that Sullivan did indeed consume numerous drinks after leaving Mulinos. Considering the evidence presented, a jury could have reasonably concluded that Sullivan remained intoxicated throughout the night, that the alcohol consumed at Mulinos contributed to his intoxication to an appreciable degree, and thus, that there was a reasonable and practical connection between the alcohol served at Mulinos and the damages sustained in the accident … . Sullivan v Mulinos of Westchester Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 01161, 2nd Dept 2-19-14

 

You might also like
PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, HIS ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE IN OPPOSITION TO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).
UNLICENSED CONTRACTOR CAN NOT RECOVER UNDER HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT OR IN QUANTUM MERUIT.
PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD WITH THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER RATHER THAN WITH HER FOSTER HOME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
NO SPECIFIC PROOF OF WHEN AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ITALIAN MANUFACTURER OF A HOSE USED AS A COMPONENT IN A DISHWASHER MADE AND SOLD BY A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Insufficient Warnings On Flammable Floor... No Prosecutorial Misconduct Where Prosecutors Told the Grand Jury that the Witness...