Hayward v. Rose & Thistle, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hayward v. Rose & Thistle, Ltd.

278 A.D.2d 455, 718 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13907

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 455 (Hayward v. Rose & Thistle, Ltd.) 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

Hayward v. Rose & Thistle, Ltd., 278 A.D.2d 455, 718 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 18, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Rose & Thistle, Ltd., s/h/a Rose & Phistle, Ltd., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) an order of the same court, dated January 10, 2000, which denied her motion for reargument and renewal.

Ordered that the order dated October 18, 1999, is reversed, on the law, that branch of the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated against the defendant Rose & Thistle, Ltd., s/h/a Rose & Phistle, Ltd.; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 10, 1999, is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated October 18, 1999; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

General Obligations Law § 11-101 (1) (the Dram Shop Act) provides a plaintiff with a cause of action against a defendant who has sold alcohol to a person who was “visibly intoxicated” and who then injures the plaintiff. The defendant Rose & Thistle, Ltd., s/h/a Rose & Phistle, Ltd. (hereinafter R & T) [456]*456failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that it did not serve alcohol to the defendant Richard F. Karchin while he was visibly intoxicated. Therefore, R & T did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Under these circumstances, the sufficiency of the plaintiffs responsive papers is irrelevant (see, Winegrad, v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 18, 1999, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Rose & Thistle, Ltd., s/h/a Rose & Phistle, Ltd., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and (2) an order of the same court, dated January 10, 2000, which denied her motion for reargument and renewal.

Ordered that the order dated October 18, 1999, is reversed, on the law, that branch of the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated against the defendant Rose & Thistle, Ltd., s/h/a Rose & Phistle, Ltd.; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 10, 1999, is dismissed as academic in light of our determination of the appeal from the order dated October 18, 1999; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

General Obligations Law § 11-101 (1) (the Dram Shop Act) provides a plaintiff with a cause of action against a defendant who has sold alcohol to a person who was “visibly intoxicated” and who then injures the plaintiff. The defendant Rose & Thistle, Ltd., s/h/a Rose & Phistle, Ltd. (hereinafter R & T) [456]*456failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish, as a matter of law, that it did not serve alcohol to the defendant Richard F. Karchin while he was visibly intoxicated. Therefore, R & T did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Under these circumstances, the sufficiency of the plaintiffs responsive papers is irrelevant (see, Winegrad, v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Mariaca-Olmos v Mizrhy, 226 AD2d 437). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 455, 718 N.Y.S.2d 401, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayward-v-rose-thistle-ltd-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack