Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
NEW YORK PEPSI-COLA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PEPSICO, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered July 2, 1996, dismissing the action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS court properly held that plaintiffs, independent wholesale distributors who purchase soft drinks for resale from an independent bottler not a party to this action, are not third-party beneficiaries of any contracts between the bottler and defendants, the bottler's licensor, it being settled that a sublicensee is not a third-party beneficiary of a contract between a licensor and direct licensee (see, Artwear, Inc. v. Hughes, 202 A.D.2d 76, 83-84, 615 N.Y.S.2d 689), and since any benefits that plaintiffs derive from such contracts are incidental (see, Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 336, 464 N.Y.S.2d 712, 451 N.E.2d 459). Nor does defendants' alleged failure to prevent other distributors from transshipping licensed products into plaintiffs' exclusive territories state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in the absence of a contract between the parties (see, Mandelblatt v. Devon Stores, 132 A.D.2d 162, 167-168, 521 N.Y.S.2d 672), or allegations showing an “intimate relationship” (see, Brasport, S.A. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp., 747 F.Supp. 199, 202). The court also properly dismissed the causes of action for tortious interference with contract since no contracts were breached (see, Artwear, Inc. v. Hughes, supra, at 85, 615 N.Y.S.2d 689), and for tortious interference with prospective business relations absent allegations of culpable conduct (see, Guard-Life Corp. v. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 N.Y.2d 183, 191, 428 N.Y.S.2d 628, 406 N.E.2d 445). Leave to replead was properly denied in the absence of a “proposed new pleading supported by evidence as on a motion for summary judgment” (Abbott v. Herzfeld & Rubin, 202 A.D.2d 351, 352, 609 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. dismissed in part, lv. denied in part, 83 N.Y.2d 995, 616 N.Y.S.2d 475, 640 N.E.2d 142).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 24, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)