Greenwich Village Beverages, Inc. v. Food Merchandisers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenwich Village Beverages, Inc. v. Food Merchandisers, Inc.

8 A.D.2d 719, 186 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8435

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 26, 1959·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Interlocutory judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint is dismissed, with costs. The plaintiff was awarded a judgment on its first cause of action for damages predicated upon an alleged breach of a written agreement, pursuant to which the plaintiff claimed that it was the exclusive distributor of the defendant’s product. Even if we recognize the letter dated August 3, 1950 as a valid contract and interpret it in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, it would still be no more than an agreement of indefinite duration and, therefore, terminable at will. Since the defendant [720]*720gave notice of - termination in August, 1954, no action for damages for breach of that contract for any period subsequent thereto may be maintained. (See Rubin v. Dairymen’s League Co-op Assn., 284 N. Y. 32, 38; Winslow v. Mayo, 123 App. Div. 758, 762, affd. 195 N. Y. 551; Outerbridge v. Campbell, 87 App. Div. 597.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

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

Interlocutory judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts, with costs to the appellant, and the complaint is dismissed, with costs. The plaintiff was awarded a judgment on its first cause of action for damages predicated upon an alleged breach of a written agreement, pursuant to which the plaintiff claimed that it was the exclusive distributor of the defendant’s product. Even if we recognize the letter dated August 3, 1950 as a valid contract and interpret it in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, it would still be no more than an agreement of indefinite duration and, therefore, terminable at will. Since the defendant [720]*720gave notice of - termination in August, 1954, no action for damages for breach of that contract for any period subsequent thereto may be maintained. (See Rubin v. Dairymen’s League Co-op Assn., 284 N. Y. 32, 38; Winslow v. Mayo, 123 App. Div. 758, 762, affd. 195 N. Y. 551; Outerbridge v. Campbell, 87 App. Div. 597.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and Stevens, JJ.

Greenwich Village Beverages, Inc. v. Food Merchandisers, Inc., 8 A.D.2d 719, 186 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

8 A.D.2d 719 (Greenwich Village Beverages, Inc. v. Food Merchandisers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related