Legal Opinion

Stevens v. Spec, Inc.

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

Decided February 15, 1996Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partYesawich Jr., J.

While we concur with the majority’s disposition of plaintiff’s first two causes of action, we would affirm Supreme Court’s holding with respect to the third cause of action, that based upon the Dram Shop Act (see, General Obligations Law § 11-101). In our view, the Court of Appeals holding in D’Amico v Christie (71 NY2d 76) — that this statute does not apply unless there is a commercial sale of alcohol (see, supra, at 84) — does not bar plaintiff’s recovery here, where defendant Spec, Inc. *814supplied defendant John Ryan with alcoholic drinks as part of the consideration for the latter’s…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. D'Amico v. ChristieNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Ryan v. Big Z Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  3. Carr v. KaiflerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  4. Custen v. Salty Dog, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API