A federal judge from the Eastern District of New York has sided with the Queens Ballpark Company (QBC), LLC, which operates Citi Field (the baseball stadium of the New York Mets), in a contract dispute with a vendor.
In short, the court eschewed a more expansive view of the contract between the parties that would have allowed the vendor, Kosher Sports, Inc. (KSI), “to sell its products at each and every Mets game.”
The claim centered on the allegation of KSI, a vendor of kosher food products, that QBC breached their contract and tortiously interfered with the contractual arrangement between KSI and Aramark Sports and Entertainment Services, LLC, QBC’s concessionaire.
More specifically, the plaintiff complained, among other things, that the defendant had improperly prevented the plaintiff from distributing its kosher products at games occurring at Citi Field during the Jewish Sabbath, i.e., on Friday evenings and Saturdays.
The defendant countered that it was Aramark’s decision “to deny the plaintiff’s request to operate on the Jewish Sabbath.”
Both sides moved for summary judgment, leading to the instant opinion.
“KSI’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied; QBC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing KSI’s claims is granted,” wrote the court. “The contract does not, as KSI argues, ‘give KSI the right to sell its products at all events during the ten-year term of the Agreement.’ The contract principally covers advertising, not product vending issues. KSI’s product-selling rights are the subject of a separate agreement between KSI and Aramark, which is not a party to this suit. The contract’s passing reference to ‘product distribution rights,’ read in context, does not grant KSI any right against QBC to sell its products at the stadium; the language refers to QBC’s promise to prohibit Aramark from selling other brands of kosher products. And the fact that the contract grants KSI the right to advertise its products in one message on the scoreboard ‘during each Mets regular season home game’ does not, as KSI argues, provide the right to sell its products at each and every Mets game. The contract was not modified by an oral agreement; none of the extrinsic evidence proffered warrants a change in the result.
“QBC’s cross-motion for summary judgment against KSI for breach of the contract is granted. An ‘action for breach of contract requires proof of (1) a contract; (2) performance of the contract by one party; (3) breach by the other party; and (4) damages.’ First Investors Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 162, 168 (2d Cir. 1998) All of these elements have been established beyond peradventure.
“With respect to QBC’s damages, it appears that KSI made the payments required of it in 2009, made only the first payment due in 2010, and then defaulted. The contract provides that in the event of a default, QBC is entitled to ‘any .. . remedies which may under the circumstances be available,’ and ‘interest on all unpaid sums at a rate equal to the lesser of sixteen (16%) per annum, or the highest rate allowed under New York law’ in the event of a default by KSI not remedied within three business days of the provision of notice.”
Kosher Sports, INC. v. Queens Ballpark Company, LLC; E.D.N.Y.; 10-CV-2618 (JBW), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21565; 2/21/12.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Edward Normand, Jason Cyrulnik, Nathan Holcomb, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY. (for defendant) Avery S. Mehlman, Jonathan L. Adler, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Herrick, Feinstein, LLP, New York, NY.
