Coffey v. Esparra

Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action under the Dram Shop Act by referring in his complaint to General Obligations Law § 11-101 and alleging that the restaurant served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated driver (see Bongiorno v D.I.G.I., Inc., 138 AD2d 120, 123 [1988]; Morrissey v Sheedy, 26 AD2d 683 [1966]). Nevertheless, Supreme Court properly granted the restaurant’s motion. The restaurant satisfied its initial burden of negating the possibility that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person by submitting the driver’s testimony that she had nothing to drink in the six…