From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. Petsche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 26, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County, Garry, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Dram Shop Act does not create a cause of action in favor of one injured as a result of his own intoxicated condition (Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629, 635; Mitchell v. The Shoals, 19 N.Y.2d 338, 340-341). Further, there is no common-law liability on the part of a tavern owner for injuries sustained by a voluntarily intoxicated patron off the premises, outside the tavern owner's control (Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, supra, at 636-637; Wellcome v. Student Coop., 125 A.D.2d 393).


Summaries of

Armstrong v. Petsche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 26, 1991
172 A.D.2d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Armstrong v. Petsche

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD O. ARMSTRONG, Respondent, v. PETER PETSCHE, Doing Business as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Apr 26, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 1079 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Strassner v. Saleem

Since the defendants concede that plaintiff's injuries occurred on a public highway, adjacent to the Lasch…

Searley v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7),…