From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wellcome v. Student Coop. of Stony Brook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1986
125 A.D.2d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 8, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff Sean Wellcome was allegedly injured when, by reason of his voluntary intoxication, he fell from the roof of a building. In this action against the owner and operator of the bar at which the plaintiff allegedly became intoxicated, recovery is sought on theories, inter alia, of common-law negligence, strict liability under Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2), and strict liability under General Obligations Law § 11-101 (the Dram Shop Act).

The causes of action pleaded under each of these theories were properly dismissed. There is no cause of action sounding in common-law negligence against a dispenser of alcoholic beverages for injuries suffered by an intoxicated customer resulting from the latter's voluntary intoxication (see, Allen v. County of Westchester, 109 A.D.2d 475, 477, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 915; Paul v. Hogan, 56 A.D.2d 723; Bizzell v. N.E.F.S. Rest, Inc., 27 A.D.2d 554; Moyer v. Lo Jim Cafe, 19 A.D.2d 523, affd 14 N.Y.2d 792). Further, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (2) which prohibits the sale or giving of alcoholic beverages to "[a]ny intoxicated person or to any person, actually or apparently, under the influence of liquor", does not create an independent statutory cause of action in favor of a person whose intoxication resulted from the illegal sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages (see, Bizzell v. N.E.F.S. Rest, Inc., supra; Moyer v. Lo Jim Cafe, supra). With regard to the Dram Shop Act, that statute creates a cause of action in favor of a third party injured or killed by an intoxicated person, but it does not create a cause of action in favor of the intoxicated person (see, Mitchell v The Shoals, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 338, 340-341; Allen v. County of Westchester, supra, at p 479; Delamater v. Kimmerle, 104 A.D.2d 242, 244; Paul v. Hogan, supra; Moyer v. Lo Jim Cafe, supra).

We find the plaintiffs' remaining contentions to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Brown and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wellcome v. Student Coop. of Stony Brook

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1986
125 A.D.2d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Wellcome v. Student Coop. of Stony Brook

Case Details

Full title:SEAN WELLCOME et al., Appellants, v. STUDENT COOPERATIVE OF STONY BROOK et…

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

Date published: Dec 8, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 393 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Van Neil v. Hopper

Michelle Van Neil and her mother, Joan Van Neil, commenced this action against defendants. Supreme Court…

Smith v. the 10th Inning, Inc.

Cf. Gressman, supra. The following selected cases from jurisdictions around the country have refused to…