You are here: / / IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER...

IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hom, in a matter of first impression, determined the “Alcoholic Beverage Control Act § 55-c(4) [hereinafter “the Act”], which prohibits the termination of agreements between brewers and beer wholesalers without good cause and an opportunity to cure, applies to non-written agreements.” Plaintiffs are beer distributors. Plaintiffs’ distribution contracts with defendant beer company (Yuengling) were oral. Defendant purported to terminate plaintiffs’ distribution contracts. In response to plaintiffs’ lawsuit alleging violation of the Act, defendants argued the Act does not apply to oral contracts. The Second Department held that the Act does apply to oral contracts, but determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for breach of the Act

:…[W]e conclude that the amended complaint in this action failed to state a cause of action alleging violations of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 55-c because the plaintiffs failed to plead the essential and material terms of their alleged distribution agreements. Oak Beverages, Inc. v D.G. Yuengling & Son, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04730, Second Dept 8-20-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a statutory-interpretation analysis where the statute is ambiguous. The issue here was whether a statute, which required that any termination of a beer distribution agreement be for good cause with an opportunity to cure, applied to both written and oral contracts. The court resolved the ambiguity in favor of protecting oral as well as written agreements.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT BOARD CERTIFIED IN EMERGENCY MEDICINE, THE EXPERT SET FORTH A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR TREATMENT BY AN INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER, WHO WAS REPRESENTING HERSELF IN THIS TERMINATION-OF-PARENTAL-RIGHTS PROCEEDING, WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BY THE JUDGE’S (1) COMMENCING THE HEARING WITHOUT HER, (2) SUBSEQUENTLY EXCLUDING HER FROM THE COURTROOM, (3) DENYING HER REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IN EVIDENCE, (4) AND DENYING HER REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO CONSULT WITH HER LEGAL ADVISOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
Severance of Action Against Defendant Which Filed for Bankruptcy Proper
DEFENDANT TRANSIT AUTHORITY DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE MOVEMENT OF THE BUS WAS UNUSUAL AND VIOLENT, PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER WAS INJURED WHEN SHE FELL ON THE BUS, TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)
DEFENDANT PERFORMED A RAP SONG DURING A RECORDED PHONE CALL MADE FROM JAIL; AN INVESIGATOR WAS CALLED AS AN EXPERT TO INTERPRET THE LYRICS; HIS INTERPRETATION MATCHED THE PEOPLE’S FACTUAL THEORY OF THE CASE; BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATOR WAS NOT ADEQUATELY QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
INSPECTION WOULD NOT HAVE DISCOVERED THE LATENT DEFECT, A SNOW COVERED HOLE IN AN AREA NOT USED AS A WALKWAY, THE LANDOWNER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINITFF’S AGENTS WHO MAILED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WERE... THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND UNDER...