You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE; POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF WILL NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant in this Dram Shop Act did not present enough evidence to warrant summary judgment, noting that pointing to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof never sufficient:

Defendant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim based on violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11—101; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65[2]). “[A] defendant when moving for summary judgment cannot merely point to gaps in the plaintiffs’ evidence, but must affirmatively demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment” … .

Although defendant’s manager testified about employee training and practices generally, his testimony regarding the incident at issue—including, inter alia, that he did not know whether any patrons were intoxicated on the date of the alleged incident, that he was not aware of anyone being asked to leave the establishment due to intoxication during the month of the incident, and that defendant did not keep records of intoxicated individuals—failed to carry defendant’s initial burden. Defendant’s further “reli[ance] on plaintiffs’ inability to prove that the assailants were served alcohol or were intoxicated” was similarly insufficient to carry its prima facie burden … . Bauseman v Pamdh Enters. Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 05355, First Dept 10-24-23

Practice Point: Defendant’s pointing to gaps in plaintiffs’ proof is not be enough to support summary judgment.

 

You might also like
Intentional Assault Did Not Sever Causal Connection to Serving Alcohol.
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A VISITATION SCHEDULE FOR FATHER; FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND COUNSELING MAY BE APPROPRIATE WHERE, AS HERE, A CHILD REFUSES VISITATION WITH A PARENT (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Provide Personal Ropes to Firefighters Is a Proper Basis for a General Municipal Law 205-a Claim
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT ALLOWS REFUSAL OF LOANS FOR ANY REASON, EVEN THOUGH THE REFUSAL MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT PUTTING PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS.
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
ALTHOUGH BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, RELATED PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.
TWO IRRELEVANT PROBATION CONDITIONS STRUCK, NON-CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PROBATION CONDITIONS NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FACIAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES SURVIVE A WAIVER OF APPEAL BUT MUST BE PRESERVED; AS-APPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES ARE PRECLUDED BY THE WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
Writ of Prohibition Barring Retrial Granted—Mistrial Granted Without Consent of Defendant Was Not Justified

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

THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY... THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING THE COUNTY TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEES...