You are here: / / THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT...

THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the club’s (Copacabana”) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Dram Shop Act cause of action should not have been granted. Because the subsequent accident did not occur on the club’s premises, the common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed:

Copacabana was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim alleging violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcohol Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]), as it did not satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person … . While Copacabana relied on defendant Anslem Trotman’s deposition testimony that he arrived to the establishment after having only one beer, and that he did not recall anyone from Copacabana serving him drinks, Trotman’s testimony was insufficient to rule out the possibility that he was served alcohol by Copacabana waitstaff while he was visibly intoxicated. Trotman had also testified that he was drunk and could not remember large portions of the night, and his testimony was equivocal as to whether Copacabana waitstaff served him drinks or whether he purchased additional alcohol beyond what came with his party package. …

Plaintiff’s common-law negligence was properly dismissed, as the accident that resulted in plaintiff’s injuries occurred off Copacabana’s premises … . The claim for punitive damages was also properly dismissed, as there is no independent cause of action for punitive damages …  and plaintiff failed to establish a basis for such damages. Denenberg v 268 W. 47th Rest., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 06866, First Dept 12-1-22

Practice Point: Here there were questions of fact whether plaintiff was served alcohol by defendant club when he was visibly intoxication. The Dram Shop Act cause of action should not have been dismissed. Because the accident did not happen on the club’s premises, the common law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CORRECTION LAW REQUIRING A SEX OFFENDER TO VERIFY HIS OR HER ADDRESS EVERY NINETY DAYS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AS APPLIED TO HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATION” ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD, AS OPPOSED TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S LOSS, AND WHETHER AN OMISSION ON DEFENDANTS’ PART WAS AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE DO NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A PISTOL PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” STANDARD IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE PURSUANT THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN “NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN V BRUEN” (FIRST DEPT). ​
MORE THAN A YEAR’S DELAY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR’S SEEKING SUBSTITUTION FOR DECEASED IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED.
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WITH RIGHT OF ENTRY TO INSPECT OR REPAIR DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO REPAIR THE DEFECT AT ISSUE, DEFECT WAS NOT STRUCTURAL AND DID NOT VIOLATE A STATUTORY SAFETY PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
INTRA- OR INTER- AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY), PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (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

DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF... PETITIONER CHIROPRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIVING PAYMENTS DIRECTLY FROM A MEDICAL...