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

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 7 N.Y.3d 871, 826 N.Y.S.2d 173, 859 N.E.2d 912

Decision Date: 11/16/2006

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Northeast Wine Development, LLC v. Service-Universal Distributors, Inc., 7 N.Y.3d 871, 826 N.Y.S.2d 173, 859 N.E.2d 912 (2006)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 2006

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 6% most-cited · cited by 48 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.45

N.Y. Sup. Ct.2

N.Y. App. Term.1

Most recently cited by10

2025People v. Bohn N.Y. App. Div.
2023People v. Nellis N.Y. App. Div.
2022People v. Covlin N.Y. App. Div.
2019People v. Holmes (Donald) N.Y. App. Term.
2018People v. Small N.Y. App. Div.
2018People v. Boyd N.Y. App. Div.
2018Ripka v. County of Madison N.Y. App. Div.
2017People v. Morgan N.Y. App. Div.
2016People v. Wlasiuk N.Y. App. Div.
2015People v. Scheidelman N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

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

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.

majority

Memorandum.

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

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.