Campbell v. Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1991 |
| Citation | 567 N.Y.S.2d 832,172 A.D.2d 478 |
| Parties | James CAMPBELL, et al., Appellants, v. LORENZO'S PIZZA PARLOR, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dienst and Serrins (Richard A. Dienst, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Fogarty & Fogarty (Robert J. Giard, Mineola, of counsel), for respondents.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and EIBER, BALLETTA and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (DiTucci, J.), dated October 16, 1989, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint 143 Misc.2d 1022, 542 N.Y.S.2d 460.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On February 22, 1986, the plaintiff, James Campbell, an off-duty New York City police detective, attempted to dissuade a young man from urinating in public. The young man began punching Detective Campbell, but was pulled away by a group of bystanders. However, a friend of the assailant came up to Detective Campbell and hit him in the face; at that point, a number of the bystanders grabbed Detective Campbell and threw him up against a car. As a result, he allegedly suffered injuries which forced him to retire from the police force.
Detective Campbell commenced the instant action against Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, Inc., and its owner, claiming, inter alia, that the defendants had violated the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(2) and the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101) by negligently serving alcoholic beverages to the two assailants who were visibly intoxicated. His wife asserted a cause of action to recover damages for loss of consortium and loss of services.
Detective Campbell's common-law negligence cause of action was properly dismissed since, at the time that he was allegedly injured, Detective Campbell was performing a police function for which he was particularly trained and compensated (see, Santangelo v. State of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 393, 526 N.Y.S.2d 812, 521 N.E.2d 770). Detective Campbell indicated in a police report, filed the day after the incident, that he "attempt[ed] to take proper Police action" and that he was injured "[w]hile affecting an off duty arrest". The plaintiffs' complaint and bill of particulars also alleged that Detective Campbell had "attempted to take police action" when injured. In addition, Detective Campbell testified at his deposition that during the incident he was carrying his firearm in an ankle holster, identified himself as a police officer, displayed his badge and attempted to arrest his assailants. Furthermore, Detective Campbell retired with a full medical disability. The order granting his retirement specifically indicated that his disability "was a natural and proximate result of an accidental injury received in the performance of duty " (emphasis supplied). The mere fact that the plaintiff happened to be off duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fontaine v. Ryan
...See Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 445 (2d Cir.1980); see also Campbell v. Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 478, 567 N.Y.S.2d 832, 834 (2d Dep't 1991), app. denied, 78 N.Y.2d 863, 578 N.Y.S.2d 877, 586 N.E.2d 60 (1991). She proffers no evidence linking her......
-
Ruotolo v. State
...not rely on them. (See, Kenavan v. City of New York, 70 N.Y.2d 558, 523 N.Y.S.2d 60, 517 N.E.2d 872, supra; Campbell v. Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, 172 A.D.2d 478, 567 N.Y.S.2d 832; Wawrzyniak v. Sherk, 170 A.D.2d 972, 566 N.Y.S.2d 138, supra.) In either case, they have failed to state a cause ......
-
Ruotolo v. State, No. 70726
...therefore not rely on them. (See, Kenavan v. City of New York, 70 NY2d 558, [523 N.Y.S.2d 60, 517 N.E.2d 872], supra; Campbell v. Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, 172 AD2d 478 ; Wawrzyniak v. Sherk, 170 AD2d 972 , supra.) In either case, they have failed to state a cause of action. (151 Misc2d 820, ......
-
Espinoza v. Schulenburg
...133-34 (1997); Alessio v. Fire & Ice, Inc., 197 N.J.Super. 22, 484 A.2d 24, 30 (Ct.App.Div.1984); Campbell v. Lorenzo's Pizza Parlor, Inc., 172 A.D.2d 478, 567 N.Y.S.2d 832, 833 (1991). We decline to require this analysis because application of the rule should not turn on a firefighter's co......