Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on November 1, 2001, he became intoxicated as a patron of defendant Sports Bar, by drinking alcohol served by defendant's employees, and that after leaving the bar he was struck by a subway, resulting in injuries. He asserts claims against the tavern and its owners under the Dram Shop Act set forth in General Obligations Law § 11-101, as well as by operation of § 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, and for negligence. However, plaintiff has no remedy under the facts as alleged.
New York courts have not imposed a common-law duty to protect a person whose injuries are results of his or her own voluntary intoxication, and have refused to recognize a common-law cause of action against providers of alcoholic beverages for injuries to such persons ( Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 N.Y.2d 629, 636; Livelli v. TeaKettle Steak House, 212 A.D.2d 513). The cause of action under the Dram Shop Act, a statutory vehicle for relief distinct from the common law, is limited to a third party injured or killed by an intoxicated person and does not authorize recovery for injuries sustained by the person whose own voluntary intoxication resulted from the sale ( Sheehy, supra at 635; cf. Rutledge v. Rockwells of Bedford, 200 A.D.2d 36, 41). Moreover we have long recognized that § 65 of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law does not create an independent statutory cause of action ( Moyer v. Lo Jim Café, 19 A.D.2d 523, affd 14 N.Y.2d 792).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.