Santoro v. Di Marco

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Santoro v. Di Marco

80 Misc. 2d 296, 363 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1193

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 19, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 Misc. 2d 296 (Santoro v. Di Marco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Santoro v. Di Marco, 80 Misc. 2d 296, 363 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

[297]*297Memorandum. In our opinion, subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, prohibiting sales of liquor to persons under .the age of 18 years, does not create a cause of action in favor of an intoxicated person for injuries resulting from an accident. (See Bizzell v. N. E. F. S. Rest, 27 A D 2d 554, to same effect with reference to subdivision 2 of section 65 prohibiting sales of liquor to any intoxicated person. (Also, see generally, McNally v. Addis, 65 Misc 2d 204.) In Bizzell (supra), the defendant served alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff knowing she was already intoxicated. In an action brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when .she fell while leaving the premises, it was held that there was no special duty resting upon the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the results of her voluntary intoxication.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

Concur: Glickman, P. J., Pittoni and McCullough, JJ.

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

[297]*297Memorandum. In our opinion, subdivision 1 of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, prohibiting sales of liquor to persons under .the age of 18 years, does not create a cause of action in favor of an intoxicated person for injuries resulting from an accident. (See Bizzell v. N. E. F. S. Rest, 27 A D 2d 554, to same effect with reference to subdivision 2 of section 65 prohibiting sales of liquor to any intoxicated person. (Also, see generally, McNally v. Addis, 65 Misc 2d 204.) In Bizzell (supra), the defendant served alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff knowing she was already intoxicated. In an action brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff when .she fell while leaving the premises, it was held that there was no special duty resting upon the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the results of her voluntary intoxication.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and complaint dismissed.

Concur: Glickman, P. J., Pittoni and McCullough, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Misc. 2d 296, 363 N.Y.S.2d 694, 1972 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santoro-v-di-marco-nyappterm-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack