DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment and the order are reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the appellants' motion is granted, so much of the complaint as sought punitive damages against the appellants is dismissed, and a new trial is granted on the remainder of the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants, with costs to abide the event.
The plaintiff allegedly became unruly while drinking at Ryan McFadden's, a bar/restaurant operated by the appellants. After the manager observed the plaintiff exit the bar, he instructed the doormen not to allow him back inside. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff returned and was told by the doormen that he could not re-enter due to his intoxicated state. The plaintiff attempted to go into the bar and the doormen restrained him, allegedly causing his injuries.
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court's refusal to instruct the jury on comparative negligence was error. A comparative negligence instruction should be given where there is any valid line of reasoning which could possibly lead rational individuals to conclude that the plaintiff was also at fault (see Shea v. New York City Tr. Auth., 289 A.D.2d 558; cf. Perales v. City of New York, 274 A.D.2d 349). Here, a jury could rationally conclude that the plaintiff's actions were a substantial factor in causing his injuries.
Additionally, the Supreme Court erred in submitting the punitive damages claim to the jury as there was insufficient evidence that the employer "authorized, participated in, consented to or ratified the conduct giving rise to such damages, or deliberately retained the unfit servant" (Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, 67 N.Y.2d 369, 378; see Baume v. 212 E. 10 N.Y. Bar, 222 A.D.2d 211; Mason v. City of New York, 949 F. Supp. 1068, 1073). In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellants' remaining contention.
KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, SCHMIDT and MASTRO, JJ., concur.