You are here: / / Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements...

Plaintiff Allegedly Assaulted by Intoxicated Patron–Proof Requirements Under Dram Shop Act Explained

The Second Department determined the defendant bar was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff alleged she was assaulted by an intoxicated patron. The court explained the proof requirements under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law 11-101):

… [W]here a plaintiff alleges that he or she was assaulted by an intoxicated individual, to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing a complaint alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act, a defendant is “required to establish either that it did not serve alcohol to [the plaintiff’s assailant] while he [or she] was visibly intoxicated or that its sale of alcohol to him [or her] had no reasonable or practical connection to the assault” … . Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Covert v Wisla Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06308, 2nd Dept 7-29-15

 

You might also like
MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).
THE “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE” FELL SHORT OF AN ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
NONPARTY BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED POSSESSION OF A CAR SUBJECT TO CIVIL FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS. (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DISFAVORED, DISCLOSURE OF REDACTED TAX RETURNS WAS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).
911 CALL MADE FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE ASSAULT PROPERLY ADMITTED AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S ALLEGED OBSERVATION OF A DRUG DEAL WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED (1) HE WAS MISADVISED THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION AND (2), HAD HE BEEN PROPERLY ADVISED, A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (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

Village Immune from Suit Alleging Negligence of Ambulance Personnel Who Responded... Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from...