Case Title: Joseph E. Kaufman v. Quickway, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2010-06-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 166  SSM 20
Joseph E. Kaufman, &c.,
et al.,
            Appellants,
        v.
Quickway, Inc., et al.,
            Respondents.
Submitted by Alexander J. Wulwick, for appellants.
Submitted by Frank W. Miller, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,
with costs.
In this Dram Shop Act action involving a convenience
store's allegedly illegal sale of alcohol to a visibly
- 2 -
SSM No. 20
- 2 -
intoxicated customer who later caused a fatal traffic accident,
the Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's order denying
defendants' motion for summary judgment, granted the motion, and
dismissed the complaint.  The Appellate Division held that the
store clerk's out-of-court statements to a State Trooper
investigating the accident were not admissible under the hearsay
exception for prior inconsistent statements to rebut her later
deposition testimony (see Letendre v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.,
21 NY2d 518, 524 [1968]; cf. Nucci v Proper, 95 NY2d 597, 603
[2001]).  We disagree.  The supporting deposition prepared by the
Trooper and signed by the witness under penalty of perjury
contained numerous indicia of reliability justifying its
admissibility under Letendre.  And, as in Letendre, the store
clerk was available for cross-examination.  In addition, the
statement was sufficient to create a triable issue regarding
whether the driver was visibly intoxicated at the time of the
alcohol sale (see Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 [2];
General Obligations Law § 11-101). 
Nevertheless, summary judgment was properly granted to
defendants.  Plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue to rebut
defendants' prima facie evidence demonstrating that no reasonable
or practical connection existed between the allegedly illegal
sale of alcohol and the accident (see Oursler v Brennan, 67 AD3d
36, 43 [4th Dept 2009], lv granted 68 AD3d 1824 [4th Dept 2009];
Schmidt v Policella, 43 AD3d 1141, 1143 [2d Dept 2007], lv denied
- 3 -
SSM No. 20
- 3 -
9 NY3d 817 [2008]).  
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,
order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman
and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided June 8, 2010