You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the bar owner’s (SNMT’s) motion for summary judgment on the Dram Shop Act and negligence causes of action were properly denied. Plaintiff was struck by a bar patron (Coscia). There were questions of fact whether the patron was served alcohol while visibly intoxicated and whether the assault was foreseeable:

… [T]he Supreme Court properly denied that branch of SNMT’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the General Obligations Law § 11-101 cause of action, and properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on that cause of action. The submissions of both parties revealed the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the bar served alcoholic beverages to Coscia while he was visibly intoxicated, whether the bar served alcoholic beverages to Coscia when it had knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that he was under 21 years of age, and whether there was some reasonable or practical connection between the service of alcohol to Coscia and the plaintiff’s injuries … .

In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of SNMT’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the negligence cause of action. “Although a property owner must act in a reasonable manner to prevent harm to those on its premises, an owner’s duty to control the conduct of persons on its premises arises only when it has the opportunity to control such conduct, and is reasonably aware of the need for such control. Thus, the owner of a public establishment has no duty to protect patrons against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” … . Here, SNMT failed to establish, prima facie, that the attack on the plaintiff was not foreseeable … . Tansey v Coscia, 2018 NY Slip Op 01633, Second Dept 3-14-18

NEGLIGENCE (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY (DRAM SHOP ACT, NEGLIGENCE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))/BARS (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ ATTENDANCE AT A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (CPLR 3408) IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN “APPEARANCE” IN THE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO FIVE DAYS NOTICE (PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (G)) RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE ‘COMBAT BY AGREEMENT’ EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA WHERE CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WAS NOT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT NEXUS BETWEEN THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA AND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SUCH THAT CLAIMANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT EXTENDED TO THE PARKING/STORAGE AREA (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RELATING TO DISCLOSURE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL’S AFFIRMATION DEMONSTRATING A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION, THE CROSS-MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING SPACES; THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED BECAUSE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRED 624 PARKING SPACES; BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS INVALID, PETITIONER COULD NOT INVOKE THE “DOCTRINE OF VESTED RIGHTS” FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING 557 SPACES (SECOND DEPARTMENT).
CPLR 205 (a), WHICH ALLOWS SIX MONTHS FOR RECOMMENCING AN ACTION AFTER DISMISSAL, APPLIES TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN THE CURRENT HOLDER OF THE NOTE IS A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PARTY WHICH STARTED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.
RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
Second Foreclosure Action Not Prohibited Where First Is Not Pending and Did Not Result in a Judgment

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

SETTLEMENT WITH INSURER DID NOT RESOLVE THE UNDERLYING WRONGFUL DENIAL OF COVERAGE... SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE...