Opinion
July 28, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
It is well established that in order to sustain a Dram Shop cause of action, a plaintiff must offer evidence that the party to whom liquor was sold acted or appeared to be visibly intoxicated at the time of the sale. (see, General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65; Nehme v Joseph, 160 A.D.2d 915; see generally, Romano v. Stanley, 90 N.Y.2d 444). In the instant case, the plaintiff's own deposition testimony established that the driver of the car neither acted nor appeared to be intoxicated at the time he was served liquor in the defendant's bar (see, Campbell v. Step/Lind Rest. Corp., 143 A.D.2d 111). Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to dismissal of the Dram Shop causes of action (see, Nehme v. Joseph, supra; Campbell v. Step/Lind Rest. Corp., supra; see also, Burkhard v. Sunset Cruises, 191 A.D.2d 669).
Any common-law negligence claim must also be dismissed since the accident in which the plaintiff was injured took place approximately two miles away from the defendant's premises (see, Donato v. McLaughlin, 195 A.D.2d 685; see also, Del Bourgo v. 138 Sidelines Corp., 208 A.D.2d 795). Moreover, in the absence of any nexus between the accident and any alleged negligence in the hiring and training of the defendant's employees, those claims must also fail.
O'Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.