CANDICE G. ADAMY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX &C. OF JOSEPH P. ADAMY,
DECEASED, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, v. MARK T. ZIRIAKUS, DEFENDANT, AND T.G.I.
FRIDAY'S, INC., APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
92 N.Y.2d 396, 704 N.E.2d 216, 681 N.Y.S.2d 463 (1998).
November 18, 1998
4 No. 142
(98 NY Int. 0132)
Decided November 18, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Edward C. Cosgrove, for appellant-respondent.
Eugene C. Tenney, for respondent-appellant.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
Central to these cross appeals is the question whether there was
evidence to support the jury's verdict that defendant T.G.I. Friday's
served alcohol to a customer while he was"visibly intoxicated"
(General Obligations Law § 11 101; Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law § 65(2)) and was therefore liable for fatal injuries suffered by
plaintiff's decedent in a car accident. Concluding that the verdict
cannot as a matter of law be disturbed, and that there is no
reversible error in any of the other issues raised by the parties, we
affirm the Appellate Division order.
I.
Lieutenant Joseph Adamy, a member of the Town of Amherst Police
Department, was killed in the early morning hours of January 27, 1990,
when his police cruiser collided with a pickup truck driven by Mark
Ziriakus. The accident occurred only a short time after Ziriakus had
left Friday's, a nearby bar restaurant. In the hours preceding the
incident, Ziriakus was in the company of friends at Friday's, where he
consumed a number of alcoholic beverages. In the aftermath of the
accident, Ziriakus failed field sobriety tests administered by police
officers at the scene and was arrested. He was ultimately convicted of
driving while intoxicated and failure to yield (Vehicle and Traffic
Law §§ 1141, 1192(2), (3)).
SNIPPETS:
Central to these cross appeals is the question whether there was evidence to support the
Concluding that the verdict cannot as a matter of law be disturbed, and that there is no
Department, was killed in the early morning hours of January 27, 1990, when his police
He was ultimately convicted of driving while intoxicated and failure to yield, ).
Plaintiff claimed that Friday's had violated the Dram Shop Act by serving Ziriakus alcoholic
The jury further determined that Ziriakus was 40% liable, Friday's 30% liable and decedent
Friday's made several post trial motions: for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new
The Appellate Division denied Friday's challenges to the verdict, but held that the trial
In seeking this relief, defendant faces the lofty hurdle of showing that "there is simply no
General Obligations Law § 11-101, known as the Dram Shop Act, makes a party who "unlawfully"
As we noted in Romano v Stanley, the failure to provide direct proof of visible intoxication
First, there was the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic
Likening Dr. Baden's proffered testimony to that of the plaintiff's expert in Romano,
we recognized that the expert's affidavit in Romano "was devoid of any reference to a
Unlike Romano, where plaintiff's only evidence offered to defeat summary judgment was an
On her cross appeal, plaintiff claims that the Appellate Division erred in holding that only
Plaintiff, as did the trial court, relies on a series of Appellate Division cases suggesting
|
