Armstrong v. Petsche
| Decision Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Citation | 569 N.Y.S.2d 257,172 A.D.2d 1079 |
| Parties | Richard O. ARMSTRONG, Respondent, v. Peter PETSCHE, d/b/a Peter's Bar and Peter's Bar, Inc., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Grunfeld, Horowitz & Faeth by George Faeth, Bayside, for appellants.
Glaser, Shandell & Blitz by Glenn Verchick, New York City, for respondent.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and DENMAN, GREEN, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.
Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Dram Shop Act does not create a cause of action in favor of one injured as a result of his own intoxicated condition (Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629, 635, 543 N.Y.S.2d 18, 541 N.E.2d 18; Mitchell v. The Shoals, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 338, 340-341, 280 N.Y.S.2d 113, 227 N.E.2d 21). Further, there is no common-law liability on the part of a tavern owner for injuries sustained by a voluntarily intoxicated patron off the premises, outside the tavern owner's control (Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, supra, at 636, 637, 543 N.Y.S.2d 18, 541 N.E.2d 18; Wellcome v. Student Coop. of Stony Brook, 125 A.D.2d 393, 509 N.Y.S.2d 816).
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strassner v. Saleem
...v. Big Flats Community Day, 137 A.D.2d 160, 528 N.Y.S.2d 213, aff'd. 73 N.Y.2d 629, 543 N.Y.S.2d 18, 541 N.E.2d 18; Armstrong v. Petsche, 172 A.D.2d 1079, 569 N.Y.S.2d 257; Martinez v. Camardella, 161 A.D.2d 1107, 558 N.Y.S.2d 211). However, a more difficult and intriguing issue relates to ......
- Alexander v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.