You are here: / / Liability for Providing Alcohol to Under-Age Purchaser Only Triggered by...

Liability for Providing Alcohol to Under-Age Purchaser Only Triggered by Injury Caused by the Purchaser.

There is no common-law cause of action for the negligent provision of alcohol.  Under General Obligations Law section 11-100, liability for furnishing alcohol is triggered only if the person who unlawfully received the alcohol causes injury.  In this case, a clerk in a convenience store sold alcohol to a 17-year-old with a fake ID who then shared the alcohol with friends.  One of the friends became intoxicated and had an automobile accident, injuring the plaintiff. Because it was not the purchaser of the alcohol who caused the accident, General Obligations Law section 11-100 did not apply.  Gutierrez vs. Devine, 1489, CA 12-01209 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

 

You might also like
LAW FIRM’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN SETTLED EXPLAINED.
SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD, AWARD CONFIRMED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIME WHEN THEY BLOCKED DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH THE POLICE VEHICLE, WHICH CONSTITUTES A SEIZURE; PLEA VACATED AND SUPPRESSION MOTION GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
STORM IN PROGRESS RULE REQUIRED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, FAILURE TO REMOVE ALL SNOW FROM A PARKING LOT DOES NOT CREATE A HAZARD.
STEP ONE OF DEFENDANT’S BATSON CHALLENGE PROPERLY REJECTED AS VAGUE AND CONCLUSORY; THERE WAS NO CONCEPCION BARRIER TO AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S STEP-ONE RULING; THE REQUEST FOR THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WHICH AMOUNTED TO A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE WERE NOT WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS, FINDING THAT THE PEOPLE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AT THE TIME THE PEOPLE INDICATED THEY WERE READY FOR TRIAL; THE DISMISSAL ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON THE PEOPLE SO THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER STARTED RUNNING RENDERING THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL TIMELY; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER “DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES” DOCUMENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT POSSESS THOSE DOCUMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Purchase of Life Estate Considered Transfer of Property Requiring Delay of Medicaid Eligibility

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

19-Year Preindictment Delay Okay; Prior Incidents of Domestic Violence Probative... Arbitrator’s Rulings Largely Unreviewable