Armstrong v. Petsche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Armstrong v. Petsche

172 A.D.2d 1079

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1079 (Armstrong v. Petsche) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Petsche, 172 A.D.2d 1079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

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 NY2d 629, 635; Mitchell v The Shoals, 19 NY2d 338, 340-341). Further, there is no common-law liability on the part of a tavern owner for injuries sustained by a voluntarily intoxi[1080]*1080cated 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 AD2d 393). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Garry, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 NY2d 629, 635; Mitchell v The Shoals, 19 NY2d 338, 340-341). Further, there is no common-law liability on the part of a tavern owner for injuries sustained by a voluntarily intoxi[1080]*1080cated 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 AD2d 393). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Garry, J.—Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-petsche-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack