You are here: / / DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER...

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the restaurant/bar’s (Hacienda’s) motion for summary judgment in this Dram Shop Act action was properly granted. Plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by Behler, was injured when the driver struck a guardrail. The driver, who was under 21, had been served alcohol at Hacienda. General Obligations Law (GOL) 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act) prohibits serving alcohol to persons under 21. The Second Department held there is a knowledge element of GOL 11-101 and Hacienda demonstrated it’s employee did not know the driver was under 21:

In 1983, the Legislature supplemented the Dram Shop Act by adding General Obligation Law § 11-100, which applies to any provider unlawfully furnishing alcoholic beverages to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for minors. Pursuant to Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1), it is unlawful to furnish an alcoholic beverage to any “person, actually or apparently, under the age of twenty-one years” … . “[L]iability under General Obligations Law § 11-100 may be imposed only on a person who knowingly causes intoxication by furnishing alcohol to (or assisting in the procurement of alcohol for) persons known or reasonably believed to be underage. While [General Obligations Law § ] 11-101 does not explicitly refer to knowledge, that same requirement must be inferred because the legislative history makes plain that section 11-100 was intended to parallel the Dram Shop Act” … . …

Hacienda established through the submission of the deposition testimony of its bartender that it did not have knowledge or reason to believe that the driver was under 21 years of age when it served alcoholic beverages to him. Ferber v Olde Erie Brew Pub & Grill, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03827, Second Dept 5-30-18

​NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/DRAM SHOP ACT (DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (DRAM SHOP ACT, DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT IMPOSED SANCTIONS ON A LAW FIRM FOR FAILING TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE APPELLATE COURT THAT A MATTER WITH A PENDING APPEAL HAD BEEN SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A STUDENT FELL ON TOP OF HIM.
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICY CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO INCLUDE DEFENDANT IN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS THE RESULT OF “WILFUL NEGLECT;” THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1523, DEFENDANT’S “WILFUL-NEGLECT” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS REFORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
FORMER SISTERS-IN-LAW WHO LIVED ONE MILE APART AND SAW EACH OTHER FREQUENTLY FOR 30 YEARS HAD AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WHICH SUPPORTED THE FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT... DRAINAGE GRATE NEAR SOCCER FIELD DEEMED OPEN AND OBVIOUS, PLAINTIFF SOCCER PLAYER...