Kinney v. 1809 Forest Ave., Inc.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New York) |
| Writing for the Court | HERZKA |
| Citation | 7 Misc.2d 1,165 N.Y.S.2d 149 |
| Parties | John E. KINNEY and Michael E. Kinney v. 1809 FOREST AVE., Inc. Anthony Stephen LEONI v. 1809 FOREST AVE. Corp. 1809 FOREST AVE., Inc. (also sued herein as 1809 Forest Ave. Corp.), Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, James C. Maroney and Elmore G. Smith, Jr., individually and as co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of Oak Room and Gerard K. Emery Third-Party Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 16 July 1957 |
Page 149
v.
1809 FOREST AVE., Inc.
Anthony Stephen LEONI
v.
1809 FOREST AVE. Corp.
1809 FOREST AVE., Inc. (also sued herein as 1809 Forest Ave.
Corp.), Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, James C. Maroney and Elmore G.
Smith, Jr., individually and as co-partners doing business
under the firm name and style of Oak Room and Gerard K.
Emery Third-Party Defendants.
Page 151
[7 Misc.2d 2] Sidney Goldstein, New York City, by Francis X. Curley, and Jeanne Ritchie Silver, New York City, of counsel, for Port of New York Authority.Lawless & Lynch, New York City, for 1809 Forest Ave., Inc. (also sued herein as 1809 Forest Ave. Corp.).
Dominick J. Lodato, Brooklyn, of counsel, William B. Gladstone, New York City, for plaintiffs.
HERZKA, Justice.
In this consolidated action for personal injuries the third-party defendant moves to dismiss the third-party complaint for legal insufficiency pursuant to Rule 106, subdivision 4 of the Rules of Civil Practice.
Plaintiffs in these actions sued the third-party plaintiff, the owner and operator of a bar and grill, for damages incurred as a result of a shooting incident which occurred at the defendant's place of business. The complaints of the plaintiffs in substance set forth that the plaintiffs were patrons of the defendant's bar when another patron (one Gerard K. Emery) suddenly and without provocation from the plaintiffs fired a number of gun shots which seriously wounded them. According to the allegations, Emery's boisterous, violent and obviously intoxicated condition was apparent to the defendant or its agents well before the shooting occurred and that the defendant well knew Emery's reaction of intoxicating beverages upon him and the condition in which he then was and despite such condition the defendant continued to serve him intoxicating beverages leading to the shooting.
The defendant is then charged with a violation of its duty to provide the public and plaintiffs with a safe and proper place to partake of the food and beverages and from attack or molestation.
Based upon these facts the complaints allege a cause of action under common law as well as under section 16 of the Civil Rights Law implementing the provisions of section 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
In impleading the third-party defendant (Port Authority) the defendant seeks to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patton v. Carnrike, No. 78-CV-464.
...24 See Manfredonia v. American Airlines, Inc., supra note 1. 25 Mitchell v. The Shoals, Inc., supra note 18; Kinney v. 1809 Forest Ave., 7 Misc.2d 1, 165 N.Y.S.2d 149 (Sup.1957); Playford v. Perich, supra note 26 Mitchell v. The Shoals, Inc., supra note 18; McNally v. Addis, 65 Misc.2d 204,......
-
Anderson v. Comardo
...the acts of the inebriate which resulted in injury (King v. Ees-Tee Rest., 36 A.D.2d 680, 319 N.Y.S.2d 791; Kinney v. 1809 Forest Ave., 7 Misc.2d 1, 165 N.Y.S.2d 149). Because of this a Dram Shop Act violator is foreclosed from seeking indemnification from his vendee. Nor is this rule any d......
-
Mitchell v. Shoals, Inc.
...liquor to any intoxicated person, or to any person actually or apparently under the influence of liquor (Kinney v. 1809 Forest Ave., Inc., 7 Misc.2d 1, 165 N.Y.S.2d 149; 2 N.Y.Jur. Alcoholic Beverages, § Page 140 From the language of the statute conferring the right, it appears that it was ......
-
Mitchell v. Shoals, Inc.
...The only New York decisions found in point are Playford v. Perich, 2 Misc.2d 170, 152 N.Y.S.2d 201, and Kinney v. 1809 Forest Ave., 7 Misc.2d 1, 165 N.Y.S.2d 149, both lower court decisions. In both cases, it was held in essence that the recovery against the 'dram shop' owner should not be ......