Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert TUNISON, etc., et al., respondents, v. D.J. STAPLETON, INC., d/b/a Napper Tandys, appellant.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant to General Obligations Law § 11–101, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered October 17, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is to determine whether material factual issues exist, not to resolve such issues (see Sillman v. Twentieth Century–Fox Film Corp., 3 N.Y.2d 395, 404, 165 N.Y.S.2d 498, 144 N.E.2d 387; French v. Cliff's Place, 125 A.D.2d 292, 508 N.Y.S.2d 577). A motion for summary judgment “should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where there are issues of credibility” (Scott v. Long Is. Power Auth., 294 A.D.2d 348, 741 N.Y.S.2d 708).
In this case, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs were precluded from recovering damages under the Dram Shop Act (see General Obligations Law § 11–101) because they caused or procured the intoxication of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident which resulted in their alleged injuries (see Mitchell v. The Shoals, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 338, 341, 280 N.Y.S.2d 113, 227 N.E.2d 21). To make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant was required to demonstrate, with respect to each plaintiff, that he or she “play[ed] a much more affirmative role than that of drinking companion” to the driver of the vehicle (id.). In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted deposition testimony which presented issues of credibility, and from which conflicting inferences could be drawn with respect to each plaintiff's involvement in the driver's intoxication. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that triable issues of fact exist, requiring denial of the defendant's motion (see Jewell v. Cumberland Farms, 235 A.D.2d 397, 652 N.Y.S.2d 550; French v. Cliff's Place, supra ).
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 11, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)