Dodge v. Victory Markets Inc.

Citation606 N.Y.S.2d 345,199 A.D.2d 917
PartiesWarren L. DODGE, Individually and as Conservator of Christopher M. Dodge, Respondent, v. VICTORY MARKETS INC. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
Decision Date30 December 1993
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Taylor, Schimpf & Matalavage (David R. Taylor, of counsel), Albany, for Victory Markets Inc., appellant.

Bohl, Della Rocca & Dorfman P.C. (John E. Dorfman, of counsel), Albany, for William Antelek, appellant.

Roemer & Featherstonhaugh (Matthew J. Kelly, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before WEISS, P.J., and CARDONA, WHITE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.

MAHONEY, Justice.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered March 2, 1993 in Albany County, which denied defendant Victory Markets Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, and (2) from an order of said court, entered January 22, 1993 in Albany County, which, inter alia, denied defendant William Antelek's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.

On the evening of February 18, 1990, defendant Matthew F. Walsh, age 20, purchased a case of beer at a Great American Supermarket with pooled money while his friends, three other minors, including 18-year-old Christopher M. Dodge, waited in a parked car outside the store. After the purchase, the group drove around drinking the beer and ultimately ended up at the home of defendant William Antelek where Walsh garaged his all terrain vehicle (hereinafter ATV). The boys and others congregated in the Antelek kitchen and, after receiving Walsh's permission, began taking turns driving the ATV. On his second ride, Dodge, who all agree was intoxicated at the time, lost control of the vehicle and sustained severe injuries which left him in a persistent vegetative state. This occurrence furnished the occasion for the within action by plaintiff, Dodge's father, individually and as Dodge's conservator, against Great American, Walsh and Antelek. Liability was predicated variously on theories of common-law negligence, negligent entrustment of the ATV, violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 and violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101).

Following completion of discovery and the filing of a note of issue, plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. In addition to requesting substitution of defendant Victory Markets, the correct corporate entity for Great American, plaintiff sought to interpose a claim against Walsh's father, to assert a General Obligations Law § 11-100 claim against Victory, to expand the claim of negligent entrustment and to increase the ad damnum clause from $4 million to $10 million. Antelek opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. During pendency of these applications, Victory also moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions and, other than denying the ad damnum increase, granted plaintiff's motion to amend in its entirety. Victory and Antelek appeal.

Addressing first the merits of Victory's motion for summary judgment, we note initially that none of the causes of action alleged in the original complaint, either by plaintiff individually or on behalf of Dodge, can withstand a summary judgment motion. The common-law negligence claims interposed by plaintiff on Dodge's behalf fail not only because the uncontroverted evidence establishes that Dodge's accident occurred outside the area of Victory's control and several hours after the sale in question (see, e.g., Etu v. Cumberland Farms, 148 A.D.2d 821, 538 N.Y.S.2d 657), but also because they fall squarely within the age-old rule which precludes recognition of a common-law cause of action against providers of alcoholic beverages in favor of persons such as Dodge, who are injured as a result of their own voluntary intoxication (see, e.g., Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629, 636, 543 N.Y.S.2d 18, 541 N.E.2d 18; Rann v. Hamilton, 194 A.D.2d 599, 599 N.Y.S.2d 51). Plaintiff's individual claims in this regard, because they simply are derivative of Dodge's, likewise must fail (cf., Shultes v. Carr, 127 A.D.2d 916, 917, 512 N.Y.S.2d 276). The second cause of action, based as it is upon violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65, is facially insufficient as it is well established that violation of this statute does not create a private right of action (see, Sherman v. Robinson, 80 N.Y.2d 483, 487, 591 N.Y.S.2d 974, 606 N.E.2d 1365; Moyer v. Lo Jim Cafe, 19 A.D.2d 523, 240 N.Y.S.2d 277, affd 14 N.Y.2d 792, 251 N.Y.S.2d 30, 200 N.E.2d 212). The Dram Shop Act claims fare no better. Victory's liability under General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101 extends only to injuries perpetrated by the very minor to whom the unlawful sale or furnishing of alcohol was made (see, e.g., Sherman v. Robinson, supra, 80 N.Y.2d at 487-488, 591 N.Y.S.2d 974, 606 N.E.2d 1365). Here, the sale was to Walsh, not to Dodge, and as originally pleaded there is no allegation that Walsh, while intoxicated, caused injury to Dodge.

Accordingly, the viability of a suit against Victory in this situation depends upon an examination of the amended complaint; more specifically whether any of the causes of action asserted therein make out a prima facie claim and, if so, whether allowing an amendment at this late date is otherwise warranted. The only appreciable change in the proposed amended pleading as respects Victory is the interposition of a new theory of liability under the Dram Shop Act. In an apparent effort to keep Victory in the action and to bring the claim against Victory within the parameters of General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101, both of which require a showing that the very minor to whom the intoxicant was sold or furnished became intoxicated and in his or her intoxicated state injured a third party, plaintiff sought leave to allege that after the sale to Walsh, Walsh became intoxicated and in his intoxicated state negligently entrusted the ATV to Dodge who, in turn, injured himself.

While, concededly, motions to amend the pleadings are to be construed liberally, they are by no means to be granted simply for the asking. Rather there must be some demonstration of merit to the proposed amendment, i.e., a showing that it prima facie states a claim (see, e.g., Mathiesen v. Mead, 168 A.D.2d 736, 563 N.Y.S.2d 887; Wieder v. Skala, 168...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Town of Verona v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 27, 2014
    ...to be granted simply for the asking. There must be some demonstration of merit to the proposed amendment (see, Dodge v. Victory Markets, 199 A.D.2d 917, 919–920, 606 N.Y.S.2d 345 [3rd Dept., 1993] ; see also, Mathiesen v. Mead, 168 A.D.2d 736, 563 N.Y.S.2d 887 [3rd Dept., 1990] ). A motion ......
  • O'Rourke v. Chew
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • July 26, 2012
    ...with one's own money ( see Slocum v. D's & Jayes Val. Rest. & Café, Inc., 182 A.D.2d 981, 982, 582 N.Y.S.2d 544;Dodge v. Victory Mkts., 199 A.D.2d 917, 606 N.Y.S.2d 345 [3d Dept 1993]; Prunty v. Keltie's Bum Steer, 163 A.D.2d 595, 559 N.Y.S.2d 354 [2d Dept 1990]; Campbell v. Step/Lind Rest.......
  • Stanley v. Kelly
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 4, 2022
    ...276 [3d Dept. 1987] ; see also Parslow v. Leake , 117 A.D.3d 55, 66, 984 N.Y.S.2d 493 [4th Dept. 2014] ; Dodge v. Victory Mkts. Inc. , 199 A.D.2d 917, 919, 606 N.Y.S.2d 345 [3d Dept. 1993] ), courts have held that the intoxicated driver of a car, or one suing on his or her behalf, may not r......
  • Humphrey v. Westchester Ltd. P'ship, 17-0885
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 21, 2019
    ...derelict in that duty was for the jury to assess, along with consideration of the chain of causation.9 See Dodge v. Victory Markets Inc., 606 N.Y.S.2d 345, 348 (N. Y. App. Div. 1993) (permitting cause of action based on sale to intoxicated minor who negligently entrusted vehicle causing inj......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT