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
AIR, LIGHT AND ACCESS EASEMENTS COULD NOT BE ASSERTED AGAINST THE STATE AS OWNER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY, RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER SEQRA TO CONTEST CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC COMFORT STATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Error for Prosecutor to Imply that Communicating with an Attorney Manifests a Consciousness of Guilt (Error Deemed Harmless Here)
JUDGE DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE, MATTER REMITTED FOR APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNSEL AND A RULING ON THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
A STORM DRAIN ALLEGEDLY CAUSED FLOODING ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENT DESIGN CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE VILLAGE ACCRUED WHEN THE STORM DRAIN WAS INSTALLED, NOT WHEN THE FLOODING OCCURRED, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A HYBRID ACTION SEEKING AN ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 AND A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (AND DAMAGES), THE BURDENS TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING ARE DIFFERENT; IN AN ARTICLE 78 THE PETITIONER MUST AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE STANDING; AND IN A DECLARTORY-JUDGMENT/DAMAGES ACTION, THE RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT) MUST DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS A MATTER OF LAW TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PUT ON NOTICE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO AS OF AUGUST 19; DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE AVERRED THAT THE VIDEO COULD HAVE BEEN AUTOMATICALLY DESTROYED BEFORE OR AFTER AUGUST 19; THEREFORE THE SPOLIATION ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE TRIER OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION SEEKING A DETERMINATION OF THE OWNERSHIP OF A STOCK CERTIFICATE REPRESENTING SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE APARTMENT IS GOVERNED BY A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE STOCK CERTIFICATE IS PERSONAL NOT REAL PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STOOD UP FROM A DESK AND TRIPPED OVER THE BOTTOM DRAWER WHICH HAD PARTIALLY OPENED; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (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

Elements of False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Explained No Prosecutorial Misconduct Where Prosecutors Told the Grand Jury that the Witness...