You are here: / / UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST...

UNLIKE THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (DRAM SHOP ACT) CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST A BAR WHICH SERVES A VISIBLY INTOXICATED PERSON WHO IS LATER INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, A COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION APPLIES ONLY TO INJURIES CAUSED BY AN INTOXICATED PERSON ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY OR IN AN AREA UNDER DEFENDANT’S CONTROL AND SUPERVISION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the common law negligence cause of action against the bar (Catch 22) which allegedly served alcohol to the minor driver should have been dismissed. The driver was involved in an accident and plaintiff’s decedent, a passenger, was killed. The General Obligations Law causes of action premised on defendant’s allegedly serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person properly survived summary judgment. But the common law negligence cause of action would only apply to injuries which occurred on defendant’s property (not in a traffic accident which occurred after leaving defendant’s property):

Under a theory of common-law negligence, a landowner may be responsible for injuries caused by an intoxicated guest … . However, liability may be imposed only for injuries that occurred on a defendant’s property, or in an area under the defendant’s control, where the defendant had the opportunity to supervise the intoxicated guest and was reasonably aware of the need for such control … . There is no dispute that the motor vehicle accident at issue occurred on a public roadway hours after the decedent and [the driver] had left the area that was under the supervision and control of Catch 22, and thus, Catch 22 established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it … . Filc v 221 Someplace Else, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 04751, Second Dept 9-27-23

Practice Point: A bar which serves a visibly intoxicated person may be liable in negligence (as opposed to pursuant to the Dram Shop Act) when the intoxicated person causes injury on the bar’s property or in an area under the bar’s supervision and control. The negligence theory does not apply to traffic accidents which occur off premises.

 

You might also like
IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIAL PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE DOWN PAYMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT; THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS RENDERED THE ALLEGED ORAL MODIFICATION UNENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Improper—Defense Waived by Failure to Answer—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect
DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH HIS ATTORNEY; THE JUDGE DENIED REQUESTS FOR NEW COUNSEL WITHOUT QUESTIONING THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM; DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED (SECOND DEPT).
EMAILS SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ACTION AGAINST A NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY MUST ALLEGE THE FAILURE TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION OR ITS MEMBERS, NOT, AS HERE, THE FAILURE TO ACT IN A MEMBER’S PERSONAL BEST INTEREST (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-B SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; IF A PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXTEND TIME FOR GOOD CAUSE, THE COURT SHOULD GO ON TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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

PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER ON A BUS WHICH VEERED OFF THE HIGHWAY IN SNOWY CONDITIONS,... PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COUNSEL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT...