Jones v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Kelly

201 A.D.2d 536, 608 N.Y.S.2d 667

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 201 A.D.2d 536 (Jones v. Kelly) 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

Jones v. Kelly, 201 A.D.2d 536, 608 N.Y.S.2d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Crabby Joe’s, Inc., doing business as Paddy McGee’s appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated January 2, 1992, which denied its motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints insofar as they are asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are granted, and the complaints are dismissed insofar as they are asserted against the appellant.

In order to sustain a claim under the Dram Shop Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the appellant vendor unlawfully sold alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated patron (see, General Obligations Law § 11-101 [1]). An unlawful sale is defined, in part, as a sale to "[a]ny visibly intoxicated person” (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]). The Supreme Court erred in denying the motions by the appellant Crabby Joe’s, Inc., doing business as Paddy McGee’s for summary judgment because there was no evidence presented that Brendan Kelly acted or appeared to be intoxicated at the time that he ordered a bottle of wine with his dinner. Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Crabby Joe’s, Inc., doing business as Paddy McGee’s appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated January 2, 1992, which denied its motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints insofar as they are asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motions are granted, and the complaints are dismissed insofar as they are asserted against the appellant.

In order to sustain a claim under the Dram Shop Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the appellant vendor unlawfully sold alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated patron (see, General Obligations Law § 11-101 [1]). An unlawful sale is defined, in part, as a sale to "[a]ny visibly intoxicated person” (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [2]). The Supreme Court erred in denying the motions by the appellant Crabby Joe’s, Inc., doing business as Paddy McGee’s for summary judgment because there was no evidence presented that Brendan Kelly acted or appeared to be intoxicated at the time that he ordered a bottle of wine with his dinner. Thompson, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 536, 608 N.Y.S.2d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack