In both cases, the plaintiff was a third-party, i.e., not the inebriate, and the accident occurred off the premises of the liquor establishment. See Wright v. Sunset, 457 N.Y.S.2d 606, 607, 91 A.D.2d 701, 701 (3d Dept. 1982) ("Any duty under [a common-law negligence] theory to control the conduct of patrons in consuming alcoholic beverages does not extend beyond the area where supervision and control may reasonably be exercised."); Besner v. Bucci, 523 N.Y.S.2d 300, 301, 135 A.D.2d 1081 (3d Dept. 1987) ("Common-law liability is not to be imposed upon a tavern owner for conduct of an intoxicated patron when the injury takes place at a location some distance from the owner's establishment.").

Defendants Portland Fire District No. 1, Portland Fire Protection District No. 2, and Portland Volunteer Fire Department moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) neither Portland Fire Protection District No. 2 nor the Portland Volunteer Fire Department is a proper legal entity which could be sued, and (2) Portland Fire District No. 1 could not be held liable for the activities of its firemen in selling beer at a fund-raising event which is outside the scope of their duties as firefighters. In New York the courts have declined to impose common-law liability upon providers of alcohol for the conduct of an intoxicated person when the injury takes place at a location some distance from the defendant's property (see, D'Amico v Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76, 85; Besner v. Bucci, 135 A.D.2d 1081, 1082; Delamater v. Kimmerle, 104 A.D.2d 242; Wright v. Sunset Recreation, 91 A.D.2d 701). Thus, Supreme Court erred in denying the motions of Fireman's Fraternity, Gala Days Committee and Murray Hose insofar as they sought dismissal of the common-law negligence causes of action asserted against them.