Flair Beverage Corp. v. C&C Cola, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flair Beverage Corp. v. C&C Cola, Inc.

248 A.D.2d 285, 670 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 285 (Flair Beverage Corp. v. C&C Cola, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flair Beverage Corp. v. C&C Cola, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 285, 670 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about January 17, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the trial court that, while the use of reverse vending machines is widely accepted by beverage dealers and distributors, the Returnable Container Act (ECL 27-1001 et seq. [the Act]) is not violated by a distributor’s rejection of returned containers dismembered in reverse vending machines whose brand and refund value cannot as a consequence be verified by a visual inspection (6 NYCRR 367.5 [b]; 367.7 [a]). The refusal of a distributor such as defendant to accept such containers for redemption, except from a trusted intermediary employing an examination method acceptable to the distributor, does not frustrate the purpose or intent of the Act.

Plaintiffs claim that defendant was unjustly enriched is unsupported in the record and was properly dismissed.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about January 17, 1997, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the trial court that, while the use of reverse vending machines is widely accepted by beverage dealers and distributors, the Returnable Container Act (ECL 27-1001 et seq. [the Act]) is not violated by a distributor’s rejection of returned containers dismembered in reverse vending machines whose brand and refund value cannot as a consequence be verified by a visual inspection (6 NYCRR 367.5 [b]; 367.7 [a]). The refusal of a distributor such as defendant to accept such containers for redemption, except from a trusted intermediary employing an examination method acceptable to the distributor, does not frustrate the purpose or intent of the Act.

Plaintiffs claim that defendant was unjustly enriched is unsupported in the record and was properly dismissed.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 285, 670 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flair-beverage-corp-v-cc-cola-inc-nyappdiv-1998.