Kenny v Hellerman
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises and social host liability, specifically whether homeowners could be liable under General Obligations Law § 11-100 [supplements the Dram Shop Act and applies to any provider unlawfully furnishing alcoholic beverages for minors] for injuries allegedly caused by an underage party guest.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the Gulkis defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the General Obligations Law § 11-100 claim against them.
The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order denying summary judgment to Eric Gulkis and Leslie Gulkis on the General Obligations Law § 11-100 cause of action.
The appellate court held that the Gulkis defendants established prima facie that the underage assailant, Matthew Hellerman, was not intoxicated at the time of the incident, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Evidence that Hellerman may have consumed alcohol was not enough without proof that he was intoxicated.
Background
The plaintiff alleged that he was assaulted by Matthew Hellerman on the front lawn of the Gulkis defendants' home during a party hosted by the Gulkis defendants' teenage daughter. The plaintiff sued Hellerman and the Gulkis defendants for personal injuries, including a claim under General Obligations Law § 11-100. After discovery, the Gulkis defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing that statutory claim.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court denied the branch of the Gulkis defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the General Obligations Law § 11-100 claim, allowing that claim to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from and granted summary judgment dismissing the General Obligations Law § 11-100 claim against Eric Gulkis and Leslie Gulkis. The court relied on deposition testimony, including Hellerman's testimony that he had not consumed alcohol for 24 hours before the incident, and found no competent evidence that he was intoxicated when the assault occurred.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that liability under General Obligations Law § 11-100 requires more than proof that an underage person may have consumed alcohol. Consistent with the court's discussion of General Obligations Law § 11-101(1) [known as the Dram Shop Act, provides a right of action against a person who unlawfully sells or assists in procuring liquor for an intoxicated person], the statute requires proof of intoxication, and conclusory assertions or speculative inferences will not defeat summary judgment.
For a claim under General Obligations Law § 11-100, a plaintiff must present evidence that the underage person was actually intoxicated, not merely that alcohol may have been consumed. Without proof of intoxication, social host liability will not stand.