Full Breakdown
Federal Judge Dismisses Sherry-Lehmann Lawsuit Over Alleged Smear Campaign
By Drooid · · How we work
Background of the Iconic Wine Merchant
Sherry-Lehmann, founded in 1934 by the father of former chief executive Michael Aaron, grew into a New York institution likened to Tiffany’s for jewelry. The store introduced Dom Pérignon champagne to American consumers in 1947 and later promoted Georges Duboeuf’s Beaujolais Nouveau to a broader market. In addition to retail, the company operated a sizable wine-futures business, allowing customers to pay for bottles that would be delivered years later.
Allegations and Legal Claims
In 2023 the retailer ceased operations after New York’s liquor authority closed its Manhattan Park Avenue location when its liquor license expired. Media reports—including those in the New York Times and Wine Spectator—accused Sherry-Lehmann of failing to deliver paid-for wines, selling stored inventory to other buyers, and withholding refunds. The company sued New York Times reporter James Stewart and former CEO Michael Aaron, alleging a coordinated smear campaign and filing a federal racketeering claim, as well as a state-law claim that Aaron breached a separation agreement.
Court Ruling and Official Responses
On September 29, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter in Manhattan dismissed the federal racketeering claim, finding that the complaint did not demonstrate a “common purpose” between Stewart and Aaron to create “popular clickbait stories” that disparaged the business. The judge also dismissed the state-law claim and granted Sherry-Lehmann’s request to withdraw from the case.
Neither Stewart’s nor Sherry-Lehmann’s attorneys responded to requests for comment.
Impact and Current Status
The dismissal ends the retailer’s attempt to pursue legal redress for the alleged smear campaign. With its flagship store closed and the lawsuit resolved, Sherry-Lehmann’s legacy remains tied to its historic role in popularizing fine wine in the United States, while the unresolved customer complaints and unpaid rent issues highlighted in media reports have left lingering questions about the firm’s final years.