From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pelinsky v. Rockensies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that no action against the defendants Arnold and Carolyn Sokoloff was viable under General Obligations Law § 11-100. General Obligations Law § 11-100 (1) provides in relevant part that: "[a]ny person who shall be injured * * * by reason of the intoxication * * * of any person under the age of twenty-one years * * * shall have a right of action * * * against any person who knowingly causes such intoxication * * * by unlawfully furnishing to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages".

This Court has held that General Obligations Law § 11-100 is not applicable to the homeowner who has neither supplied alcohol to nor procured alcohol for consumption by an underage person (see, MacGilvray v. Denino, 149 A.D.2d 571). Therefore, the court properly granted the motion for summary judgment. Lawrence, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pelinsky v. Rockensies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 7, 1994
209 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Pelinsky v. Rockensies

Case Details

Full title:LARA PELINSKY et al., Appellants, v. TODD C. ROCKENSIES et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 7, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 103

Citing Cases

Torsiello v. Green

§ 11-100, a plaintiff who has been damaged by reason of the intoxication or impairment of ability of an…

Steinhaus v. Duvernoy

11-100, a plaintiff who has been damaged by reason of the intoxication or impairment of ability of an…