Northeast Wine Development, LLC v. Service-Universal Distributors, Inc.

Northeast Wine Development, LLC, Doing Business as All Star Wine & Spirits, Appellant, v. Service-Universal Distributors, Inc., Respondent, Et Al., Defendant

859 N.E.2d 912, 7 N.Y.3d 871, 826 N.Y.S.2d 173 • 2006-11-16

Citation859 N.E.2d 912, 7 N.Y.3d 871, 826 N.Y.S.2d 173

Date Filed2006-11-16

JudgeKaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott Concur

Cited67 times

StatusPublished

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Crane, Párente, Cherubin & Murray, Albany (John T. McManus and Thomas M. Keman of counsel), for appellant., Tuczinski, Cavalier, Burstein & Collura, PC., Albany (Andrew W. Gilchrist, Richard L. Burstein and Jennifer M. Boll of counsel), for respondent.

Full Opinion (html_with_citations)

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

*873 The Appellate Division correctly concluded that plaintiffs complaint should he dismissed. The first two causes of action, alleging deceptive conduct in violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, are untenable because the acts alleged do not have the requisite impact on consumers.

Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiffs causes of action seeking injunctive relief are now academic. The Attorney General and the State Liquor Authority entered into a consent decree with eight wine and liquor wholesalers, including defendant. In September 2006, Supreme Court issued an order and judgment enjoining defendant from engaging in the precise conduct for which plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. Plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.