Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Petsche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 26, 1991PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendants are entitled to dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Dram Shop Act does not create a cause of action in favor of one injured as a result of his own intoxicated condition (Sheehy v Big Flats Community Day, 73 NY2d 629, 635; Mitchell v The Shoals, 19 NY2d 338, 340-341). Further, there is no common-law liability on the part of a tavern owner for injuries sustained by a voluntarily intoxi*1080cated patron off the premises, outside the tavern owner’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Mitchell v. Shoals, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1967
  3. Wellcome v. Student CooperativeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Oursler v. BrennanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  2. Searley v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  3. Strassner v. SaleemNew York Supreme Court · 1993

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API