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
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY THE LEASE OR ANY STATUTE TO REPAIR THE FLOOR OF A WALK-IN FREEZER IN THE LEASED PREMISES; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DENTS IN THE METAL FLOOR CAUSED HIS LADDER TO FALL OVER; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY FOR 30 YEARS HAD AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WHICH SUPPORTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE NONHEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE THE “PHYSICAL INJURY” ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD RENDERING THE PETITION JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, A PORTION OF A LIGHT FIXTURE IN PLAINTIFF’S ON-CAMPUS ROOM FELL ON HER (SECOND DEPT).
NO APPEAL LIES FROM THE DENIAL OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A SKIDLOADER USED TO HOIST A MOTOR, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (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...