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
PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BANK MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO REACH A RESOLUTION AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Vicarious Liability of Hospital for Actions of Non-Employee Physician Explained (Not Met Here)
EXPERT AFFIDAVITS, SUBMITTED SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CHIROPRACTOR DEVIATED FROM THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.
PETITIONER-REPORTER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL ACTION DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF SOME OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL HAD NOTIFIED ALL PARTIES HE WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING PLAINTIFF, THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD HAD NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, THEREFORE THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF PRO SE WAS NOT VALID.
THE FACT THAT A MORTGAGE IS MERELY INSURED BY HUD OR THE FHA DOES NOT MAKE THE BANK WHICH HOLDS THE MORTGAGE AN ASSIGNEE OF A FEDERAL AGENCY SUCH THAT NEW YORK’S STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY; A BANK IS NOT AN ASSIGNEE OF HUD OR THE FHA IF IT WAS NOT ASSIGNED THE AUTHORITY TO FORECLOSE THE INSURED MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING, ZONING BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCES WAS THEREFORE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

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...