From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conrad v. Bayside Bowling Recreation Centre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1994
209 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 14, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiff's allegation that his assailants were intoxicated, upon which his claim of a Dram Shop violation is predicated, is conclusory and unsubstantiated and thus insufficient to have created a triable issue of fact (see, Village Bank v. Wild Oaks Holding, 196 A.D.2d 812).

The plaintiff's reliance on Stevens v. Kirby ( 86 A.D.2d 391), in support of his claim of common-law negligence, is misplaced inasmuch as he was not a patron at the appellant's establishment. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Conrad v. Bayside Bowling Recreation Centre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 14, 1994
209 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Conrad v. Bayside Bowling Recreation Centre

Case Details

Full title:SANFORD CONRAD, Respondent, v. BAYSIDE BOWLING AND RECREATION CENTRE…

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

Date published: Nov 14, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 637

Citing Cases

Languilli v. Argonaut Restaurant and Diner

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the appellant's motion for summary judgment is…

Herman v. St. John's Episcopal

concrete specifications" ( Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 505), and, thus, may serve…