Lindsay v. Potter

163 A.D.2d 870
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 13, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted to defendant Cane, doing business as Lexington Avenue Inn. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, defendant must establish his defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment” in his favor (CPLR 3212 [b]; Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau, 71 NY2d 420, 425). Upon review of the record, we find that defendant Cane failed to establish, as a matter of law, that a prohibited sale of alcoholic beverages was not made to defendant Potter in the Lexington Avenue Inn on December 15, 1985 (see, Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §65 [former (2)]). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Lindsay v. Potter, 163 A.D.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

163 A.D.2d 870 (Lindsay v. Potter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walsh-Jones Agency, Inc. v. Rutecki
210 A.D.2d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
McGowan v. Villa Maria College
185 A.D.2d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)