Procopio v. Eichle

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order granting Kim Eichle summary judgment in a personal-injury action arising from an assault outside a New Year's Eve party at her home. The court held that Eichle established she did not furnish or procure alcohol for the minors and that the injured plaintiff could not identify whether an icy sidewalk contributed to his fall without speculation. The court also affirmed dismissal of the relevant claims against Eichle arising under New York's Dram Shop Act and premises-liability theories.

Holdings

1. Eichle established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that she did not serve alcohol to any visibly intoxicated individual and did not procure or furnish alcohol to any minor at her home, including Russo. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
2. Eichle established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the infant could not identify whether the allegedly icy sidewalk caused or contributed to his fall without engaging in speculation. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
3. The Supreme Court properly granted the branches of Russo's motion seeking dismissal of the first and second causes of action insofar as asserted against Eichle, and the order was affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Eichle was entitled to summary judgment on the causes of action alleging violations of New York General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101.
2. Whether Eichle was entitled to summary judgment on the premises-liability cause of action because the infant could not identify the cause of his fall without speculation.
3. Whether the branches of Russo's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action insofar as asserted against Eichle were properly granted.

Disposition

affirmed