Butler v. New York City Transit Authority
Decision Date | 06 January 2004 |
Docket Number | 2107. |
Citation | 770 N.Y.S.2d 317,2004 NY Slip Op 00030,3 A.D.3d 301 |
Parties | MICHAEL BUTLER, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, and SPORTS BAR, Formerly Known as STAN'S SPORTS BAR, INC., et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on November 1, 2001, he became intoxicated as a patron of defendant Sports Bar, by drinking alcohol served by defendant's employees, and that after leaving the bar he was struck by a subway train, resulting in injuries. He asserts claims against the tavern and its owners under the Dram Shop Act set forth in General Obligations Law § 11-101, as well as by operation of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and for negligence. However, plaintiff has no remedy under the facts as alleged.
New York courts have not imposed a common-law duty to protect a person whose injuries are results of his or her own voluntary intoxication, and have refused to recognize a common-law cause of action against providers of alcoholic beverages for injuries to such persons (Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, 73 NY2d 629, 636 [1989]; Livelli v Teakettle Steak House, 212 AD2d 513 [1995]). The cause of action under the Dram Shop Act, a statutory vehicle for relief distinct from the common law, is limited to a third party injured or killed by an intoxicated person and does not authorize recovery for injuries sustained by the person whose own voluntary intoxication resulted from the sale (Sheehy at 635; cf. Rutledge v Rockwells of Bedford, 200 AD2d 36, 41 [1994]). Moreover we have long recognized that section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law does not create an independent statutory cause of action (Moyer v Lo Jim Café, 19 AD2d 523 [1963], affd 14 NY2d 792 [1964]).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
De Leo v. Bauman, 1556/14
...N.Y.S.2d 18, 541 N.E.2d 18] [1989] ; Livelli v. Teakettle Steak House, 212 A.D.2d 513 [1995] )" ( Butler v. NY City Transit Auth. , 3 A.D.3d 301, 301-302, 770 N.Y.S.2d 317 [1st Dept. 2004]. "An exception...has been recognized in cases where a property owner has failed to protect others on t......