New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Zona v. Oatka Restaurant & Lounge, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 7, 1986

68 N.Y.2d 824; 499 N.E.2d 869; 507 N.Y.S.2d 615; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 20456

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Silverman v. Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP (In re Agape World Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York 2012)
Mowczan v. Bacon (N.Y. 1998)
Specialized Industrial Services Corp. v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Specialized Industrial Services Corp. v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Giglio v. NTIMP Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Schaefer v. Town of Victor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Adamy v. Ziriakus (N.Y. 1998)
Coughlin v. Barker Avenue Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Scheu v. High-Forest Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint should be denied.

The policy of the law, as declared by the Legislature in CPLR 1401, is to allow contribution "unless it is clear that the legislative policy which led to the passage of the statute would be frustrated by the granting of contribution in favor of the *826person who violated the statute” (12th Ann Rep of NY Judicial Conference on CPLR, reprinted in 20th Ann Rep of NY Judicial Conference, 1975, at 216, and in 1974 McKinney’s Session Laws of NY, at 1808). Contribution from a vendee to a vendor for injury to a third person does not violate the Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101) (Herrick v Second Outhouse, 64 NY2d 692, affg 100 AD2d 952; Smith v Guli, 106 AD2d 120; Weinheimer v Hoffman, 97 AD2d 314). Nor is it violative of the policy of that act to allow contribution from the estate of a vendee who dies after the accident as to causes of action for the pain and suffering of a deceased injured person and the loss of means of support of her daughter, notwithstanding that the deceased vendee was the husband of the deceased injured person and the father of the means-of-support plaintiff. Although allowing contribution may reduce the total dollars otherwise available to the daughter of the vendee, that stems from the fortuitous circumstance of his later death, and because it is indirect does not violate the policy of the Dram Shop Act.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.