Morrissey v. Sheedy
| Decision Date | 06 July 1966 |
| Citation | 272 N.Y.S.2d 430,26 A.D.2d 683 |
| Parties | John MORRISSEY, Appellant, v. Thomas D. SHEEDY, etc., Respondent, d/b/a Sheedy's Tavern Cornelius Gallagher, George Tappan et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before UGHETTA, Acting P.J., and BRENNAN, RABIN, HOPKINS and BENJAMIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 20, 1963 in favor of defendant Sheedy upon a jury verdict. The other defendants were not served.
Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
The complaint, in the cause of action pleaded against defendant Sheedy, alleged in effect that plaintiff, a patron in said defendant's tavern, was assaulted and injured by the other defendants, after they were served alcoholic beverages while in an intoxicated condition, and that defendant Sheedy was negligent in so doing and in failing to provide a safe place for plaintiff. In our opinion, the complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action under former section 16 of the Civil Rights Law (now General Obligations Law, § 11--101) as well as a common-law cause of action in negligence (cf. Van Tuyl v. New York Real Estate Security Co., 153 App.Div. 409, 410--411, 138 N.Y.S. 541, 544--545, affd. sub nom. Carnegie Trust Co. v. New York Real Estate Security Co., 207 N.Y. 691, 101 N.E. 1096; Tyrrell v. Quigley, 186 Misc. 972, 60 N.Y.S.2d 821). We are also of the opinion that plaintiff's proof established a prima facie case under both theories. It was error, therefore, to refuse plaintiff's request to charge section 16 of the Civil Rights Law on the ground, in substance, that the complaint was based only upon commonlaw liability.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. Olin Corp.
...adults is negligent. And this is so despite the fact that serving alcohol to sober ones is not. See Morrissey v. Sheedy, 26 A.D.2d 683, 272 N.Y.S.2d 430, 431-32 (1966); Tyrrell v. Quigley, 186 Misc. 972, 60 N.Y.S.2d 821, 822 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1946). Selling tanks to the armed forces is fine; sell......
-
McNally v. Addis
...532), only common-law negligence will lie. Actions in negligence lie despite claimed violations of the Dram Shop Act (Morrissey v. Sheedy, 26 A.D.2d 683, 272 N.Y.S.2d 430; Hosdale v. Marrabell, 285 App.Div. 1168, 140 N.Y.S.2d 562; Berkeley v. Park, 47 Misc.2d 381, 262 N.Y.S.2d 290; Tyrrell ......
-
Manuel v. Weitzman
...the defendant was bound to use reasonable care to protect his patrons from injury The same result was reached in Morrisey v. Sheedy (1966), 26 App.Div.2d 683, 272 N.Y.S.2d 430. at the hands of a vicious individual whom allegedly he knowingly permitted to be in and about his place of busines......
-
Conrad v. Beck-Turek, Ltd., Inc.
...omitted). Conrad cites Ross v. Roberta Bar and Grill, Inc., 441 N.Y.S.2d 23, 83 A.D.2d 550 (2d Dept.1981) and Morrissey v. Sheedy, 272 N.Y.S.2d 430, 26 A.D.2d 683 (2d Dept.1966) in support of its argument that New York recognizes a negligence cause of action against the liquor provider. In ......