Marconi v. Reilly
| Decision Date | 26 October 1998 |
| Citation | 254 A.D.2d 463,678 N.Y.S.2d 785 |
| Parties | 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9343 William MARCONI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Lenore D. REILLY, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Ischia Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Frankie B'Z, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Fiedelman & McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (William D. Buckley of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.
Michael V. Flanagan (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lisa M. Comeau and Lawrence B. Goodman] of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-respondent.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated September 17, 1997, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Minutes after the defendant third-party plaintiff Lenore Reilly left the restaurant Frankie B'Z, where she had consumed at least two martinis, the car she was driving struck the plaintiffs' vehicle while it was stopped at a traffic light. At the scene of the accident, the plaintiffs and a police officer observed that Reilly had an unsteady gait, slurred speech, glazed and bloodshot eyes, and smelled of alcohol. Reilly was arrested at the scene. A breathalyzer test administered approximately two hours after the accident indicated a blood alcohol content of .145%. Reilly subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated. The plaintiffs commenced this action against Reilly, who, in turn, commenced a third-party action for contribution against Ischia Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Frankie B'Z based on an alleged violation of the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101). Frankie B'Z moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, arguing that Reilly could not establish that she was visibly intoxicated at the time she was served the alcohol. The Supreme Court denied the motion and we affirm.
To sustain a claim under the Dram Shop Act, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant unlawfully sold liquor to a visibly intoxicated person (see, General Obligations Law § 11-101[1]; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65[2]; Nehme v. Joseph, 160 A.D.2d 915, 554 N.Y.S.2d 642). In support of its motion for summary judgment, Frankie B'Z submitted a portion of Reilly's deposition testimony in which she claimed that she had no trouble getting off her barstool and leaving the restaurant after having consumed at least two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry–lee v. the City of N.Y.
...at the time of the sale.” Nehme v. Joseph, 160 A.D.2d 915, 554 N.Y.S.2d 642, 643 (2d Dep't 1990); see also Marconi v. Reilly, 254 A.D.2d 463, 678 N.Y.S.2d 785, 786 (2d Dep't 1998).(b) Application Plaintiff does not present any evidence demonstrating that Baumeister, Ingram, or Roughneen wer......
-
Lazo v. GSK Builders Grp.
...testimony as well as other admissible forms of evidence, including an expert's affidavit, and eyewitness testimony (Marconi v. Reilly, 254 A.D.2d 463 [2d Dept 1998]). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view the evidence presented "in the light most favorable......
-
Cordero v. Hall Heating & Cooling Serv.
... ... forms of evidence, including an expert's affidavit, and ... eyewitness testimony ( Marconi v. Reilly, ... 254 A.D.2d 463 [2d Dept 1998]). In deciding a motion for ... summary judgment the court is required to view the evidence ... ...
-
Calagiovanni v. Carello
... ... Correa, 150 A.D.3d 1041 ... (2 nd Dept 2017) Sherwood v. Otto ... Jazz. Inc., 142 ADd3d 1160 (2 nd Dept 2016); ... Marconi v. Reilly ... 254 A.D.2d 463 (2 nd ... Dept 1998). A dispute as to the number of drinks consumed by ... Carello is not any more ... ...
-
Expert witnesses
...was based on both blood-alcohol level and an affidavit of an eyewitness who saw patron at another pub thereafter. Marconi v. Reilly , 254 A.D.2d 463, 678 N.Y.S.2d 785 (2d Dept. 1998). An affidavit from a toxicologist expert that plaintiff was visibly intoxicated when she left bar was suffic......
-
Expert witnesses
...was based on both blood alcohol level and an aidavit of an eyewitness who saw patron at another pub thereafter. Marconi v. Reilly , 254 A.D.2d 463, 678 N.Y.S.2d 785 (2d Dept. 1998). An aidavit from a toxicologist expert that plaintif was visibly intoxicated when she left bar was suicient to......
-
Expert witnesses
...was based on both blood alcohol level and an aidavit of an eyewitness who saw patron at another pub thereafter. Marconi v. Reilly , 254 A.D.2d 463, 678 N.Y.S.2d 785 (2d Dept. 1998). An aidavit from a toxicologist expert that plaintif was visibly intoxicated when she left bar was suicient to......
-
Expert witnesses
...was based on both blood alcohol level and an affidavit of an eyewitness who saw patron at another pub thereafter. Marconi v. Reilly , 254 A.D.2d 463, 678 N.Y.S.2d 785 (2d Dept. 1998). An affidavit from a toxicologist expert that plaintiff was visibly intoxicated when she left bar was suffic......