Languilli v. Argonaut Restaurant & Diner, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Languilli v. Argonaut Restaurant & Diner, Inc.

232 A.D.2d 375, 648 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9915

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 375 (Languilli v. Argonaut Restaurant & Diner, 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

Languilli v. Argonaut Restaurant & Diner, Inc., 232 A.D.2d 375, 648 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Argonaut Restaurant and Diner, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated January 10, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff’s cause of action against the appellant alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101), in that the codefendants were served alcoholic beverages while in a visibly intoxicated state, is conclusory and unsubstantiated and thus insufficient to create a triable issue of fact (see, Conrad v Bayside Bowling & Recreation Centre, 209 AD2d 467).

As for the plaintiff’s causes of action sounding in common-law negligence, there was no evidence presented by the plaintiff of any indicators of an escalating situation between the plaintiff and his assailants such that it could be said that the owner was aware of the disturbance or that he could have anticipated it (cf., Cittadino v DeGironimo, 198 AD2d 801, 802; Heavlin v Gush, 197 AD2d 773; Matter of Bars R Us v New York State Liq. Auth., 192 AD2d 1050, 1051). Moreover, "[t]he [376]*376mere fact that a single similar incident, involving different patrons, may have occurred in the defendant’s restaurant approximately [eight] months prior to the incident involved in this case does not, without more, establish that the defendant owed a duty to protect the plaintiff against such an unexpected and sudden assault.” (Lindskog v Southland Rest., 160 AD2d 842, 843.) Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, 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 defendant Argonaut Restaurant and Diner, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated January 10, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff’s cause of action against the appellant alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101), in that the codefendants were served alcoholic beverages while in a visibly intoxicated state, is conclusory and unsubstantiated and thus insufficient to create a triable issue of fact (see, Conrad v Bayside Bowling & Recreation Centre, 209 AD2d 467).

As for the plaintiff’s causes of action sounding in common-law negligence, there was no evidence presented by the plaintiff of any indicators of an escalating situation between the plaintiff and his assailants such that it could be said that the owner was aware of the disturbance or that he could have anticipated it (cf., Cittadino v DeGironimo, 198 AD2d 801, 802; Heavlin v Gush, 197 AD2d 773; Matter of Bars R Us v New York State Liq. Auth., 192 AD2d 1050, 1051). Moreover, "[t]he [376]*376mere fact that a single similar incident, involving different patrons, may have occurred in the defendant’s restaurant approximately [eight] months prior to the incident involved in this case does not, without more, establish that the defendant owed a duty to protect the plaintiff against such an unexpected and sudden assault.” (Lindskog v Southland Rest., 160 AD2d 842, 843.) Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 375, 648 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/languilli-v-argonaut-restaurant-diner-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack