Fiegl v. 1695 Ridge Road Webster Inn Restaurant, Inc.

162 A.D.2d 1024, 557 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9804
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1024 (Fiegl v. 1695 Ridge Road Webster Inn Restaurant, Inc.) 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
Fiegl v. 1695 Ridge Road Webster Inn Restaurant, Inc., 162 A.D.2d 1024, 557 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9804 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motion of defendants 1695 Ridge Road Webster Inn Restaurant, Inc. and Philip Cubiotti for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ causes of action under the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101).

[1025]*1025The accident which caused the injuries to plaintiff Dolores Fiegl and the deaths of plaintiff Mark Fiegl’s wife and child occurred shortly after codefendant Haydock left the Webster Inn. Although defendant submitted EBT testimony of several witnesses to the effect that Haydock did not exhibit any signs of being intoxicated, police at the scene of the accident had no difficulty determining that he had been drinking and was intoxicated. Haydock admitted that he had three martinis at the Webster Inn and did not go to any other bars between the time he left the Webster Inn and the accident, which occurred at 2:00 p.m. His blood alcohol level at 5:00 p.m. was .16/.17%. Plaintiffs’ expert opined that, based on the test results, Hay-dock would have to have consumed more than three martinis at lunch. Furthermore, Haydock pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. This evidence presents a question of fact concerning how much alcohol Haydock in fact consumed and whether he was actually or apparently intoxicated when served at the Webster Inn (see, Wasserman v Godoy, 136 AD2d 631, 632). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Wayne County, Strobridge, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Conklin v. Travers
129 A.D.3d 765 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Marconi v. Reilly
254 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Donato v. McLaughlin
195 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Meizinger v. Akin
192 A.D.2d 1011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Nesbitt v. Jackson
178 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 A.D.2d 1024, 557 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiegl-v-1695-ridge-road-webster-inn-restaurant-inc-nyappdiv-1990.