From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGovern v. 4299 Katonah Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 2004
5 A.D.3d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3171.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered May 6, 2003, which, in an action for personal injuries under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101) and in common-law negligence, denied defendant tavern's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Michael M. Horowitz for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Joseph T. Roccanova for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.


With respect to the Dram Shop claim, defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person ( see Darwish v. City of New York, 287 A.D.2d 407). The affidavit of its bartender, that neither he nor another bartender served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated man on the night in question, does not mention a third bartender who worked that night ( see Duran v. Poggio, 244 A.D.2d 162; Cole v. O'Tooles of Utica, 222 A.D.2d 88, 92-93). In any event, even if defendant did meet its initial burden, plaintiff's submissions, to the effect that the patron who fell on top of her was, for at least an hour before, seen holding alcoholic drinks, stumbling around and in other ways visibly intoxicated, and that immediately after the accident his eyes were glassy, his speech slurred and he was so drunk that he could hardly stand, suffice to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendant served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person ( see Dollar v. O'Hearn, 248 A.D.2d 886; Jarzabek v. Tucci, 155 A.D.2d 908). These same submissions also suffice to raise issues of fact as to whether defendant's employees should have been aware that a potentially dangerous situation existed, and breached their duty to exercise adequate supervision and control over their patron's behavior, precluding summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's negligence claim ( see Dollar, id. at 87; Kern v. Ray, 283 A.D.2d 402).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

McGovern v. 4299 Katonah Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 18, 2004
5 A.D.3d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

McGovern v. 4299 Katonah Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CATHERINE McGOVERN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 4299 KATONAH INC., ETC.…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
773 N.Y.S.2d 285

Citing Cases

Lorenzo v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc

Coffey v. Esparra, 88 A.D.3d at 621; Zamore v. Bar None Holding Co., LLC, 73 A.D.3d 601, 602 (1st Dep't…

Haesler v. N.Y. Athletic Club of N.Y.

This evidence of their intoxication, raises a factual issue whether Doran and Drowica were perceptibly…