Smith v. Guli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Guli

117 A.D.2d 1017, 499 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53268

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 A.D.2d 1017 (Smith v. Guli) 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

Smith v. Guli, 117 A.D.2d 1017, 499 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find no proof that respondents unlawfully sold or unlawfully assisted in the procurement of liquor by the intoxicated person which would support a violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101 [1]). The proof demonstrated mere consumption by Guli. The Dram Shop Act must be construed narrowly (Gabrielle v Craft, 75 AD2d 939) and absent proof of any sales of intoxicating beverages to Guli or other evidence that respondents did unlawfully assist "in procuring liquor for [such] intoxicated person”, summary judgment was properly granted (Wright v Sunset Recreation, 91 AD2d 701). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We find no proof that respondents unlawfully sold or unlawfully assisted in the procurement of liquor by the intoxicated person which would support a violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101 [1]). The proof demonstrated mere consumption by Guli. The Dram Shop Act must be construed narrowly (Gabrielle v Craft, 75 AD2d 939) and absent proof of any sales of intoxicating beverages to Guli or other evidence that respondents did unlawfully assist "in procuring liquor for [such] intoxicated person”, summary judgment was properly granted (Wright v Sunset Recreation, 91 AD2d 701). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 1017, 499 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-guli-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack