Smith v. Guli

117 A.D.2d 1017, 499 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53268
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 21, 1986·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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).

117 A.D.2d 1017 (Smith v. Guli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rann v. Hamilton
194 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Pizzaro v. City of New York
188 A.D.2d 591 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Haskell v. Chautauqua County Fireman's Fraternity, Inc.
184 A.D.2d 12 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Custen v. Salty Dog, Inc.
170 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Stewart v. Taylor
167 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)