From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Studley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1995
217 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

July 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiffs and defendant James A. Studley appeal from an order of Supreme Court granting the summary judgment motion of defendant Concord Bowling Lanes of Springfield, Inc. (Concord) dismissing the amended complaint and Studley's cross claim against Concord. The court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' Dram Shop cause of action ( see, General Obligations Law § 11-101; Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65) and Studley's cross claim against Concord. In opposition to Concord's motion, plaintiffs and Studley "raised * * * triable issue[s] of fact on that cause of action" by proffering "competent * * * testimony tending to establish, circumstantially, that [Studley was present on Concord's premises and] was [visibly] intoxicated at the time he was sold alcoholic beverages" ( Nesbitt v. Jackson, 178 A.D.2d 931, 932; cf., Jones v. Kelly, 201 A.D.2d 536). Therefore, we modify the order by denying in part Concord's motion and by reinstating plaintiffs' fourth cause of action alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act and Studley's cross claim for indemnification or contribution against Concord.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Studley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 14, 1995
217 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Studley

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT REYNOLDS et al., Appellants, v. JAMES A. STUDLEY, Appellant, and…

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

Date published: Jul 14, 1995

Citations

217 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
631 N.Y.S.2d 269

Citing Cases

Gray v. Hedlund

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the motions of defendants L.B. of Falconer Corporation, doing…

Calagiovanni v. Carello

Were we to review plaintiff's submissions, particularly the affidavit of plaintiff's expert, we would…