You are here: / / DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY...

DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Dram Shop Act cause of action was properly granted, but the negligence cause of action in this third-party assault case should not have been granted. There was uncontested evidence the assailant did not appear to be drunk when served. But there was a question of fact whether the defendant restaurant took adequate measures to protect plaintiff from a second attack by the assailant:

Defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; see also Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65). A witness testified that plaintiff’s assailant did not appear visibly intoxicated at the time he was served two drinks by defendant. This evidence was sufficient to make out a prima facie showing that the assailant was not visibly intoxicated at the time he was served alcohol, since it is clear from the record that he was not served from that point in time until he attacked plaintiff … . …

While the first assault was sudden and unforseeable, and therefore not actionable, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that it took reasonable actions to protect plaintiff from the assailant on the second assault and that it was not foreseeable. It is true that the husband of defendant’s owner averred that he was escorting the assailant, who appeared to have calmed down “somewhat,” from the premises, when he suddenly lunged two or three feet to where plaintiff was standing, and struck him. However, another witness testified that immediately prior to assailant’s attack on plaintiff, he did not see anyone accompanying or escorting the assailant while the assailant exited defendant’s establishment. Ricaurte v Inwood Beer Garden & Bistro Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07242, First Dept 10-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (THIRD PARTY ASSAULT, (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ASSAULT, THIRD PARTY  (DRAM SHOP CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RESTAURANT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE PROPERLY DISMISSED, BUT NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION, PROPERLY PURSUED CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO DISSOLUTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STORE MANAGER FELL FROM A LADDER WHILE ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE CEILING TILES DAMAGED BY A LEAK IN THE ROOF; PLAINTIFF SUED THE BUILDING OWNER; THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BUT THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITH NO GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Shareholders’ Requests for Documents for Investigation of Possible Wrongdoing by Corporation Were Facially Legitimate Under the Business Corporation Law (BCL) and Common Law–No Need for Shareholders to Bring a Shareholders’ Derivative Action to Procure the Documents
RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.
HERE THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TEN-DAY’S NOTICE THEY WERE SEEKING A HIGHER SORA RISK LEVEL THAN THAT RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD WARRANTED A REDUCTION FROM LEVEL THREE TO TWO; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REPLY TO THE LATE NOTICE DID NOT WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT (FIRST 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

UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S... FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST...