Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc.

37 Misc. 2d 172, 237 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2476

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 11, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 37 Misc. 2d 172 (Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc., 37 Misc. 2d 172, 237 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2476 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Vincent A. Lupiano, J.

Defendant Buena Vista Distribution Company, Inc., moves for dismissal of the complaint pursuant [173]*173to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice. In the first cause of action plaintiff alleges claimed interference by the defendant Walter Beade Theatres, Inc., with plaintiff’s business opportunities with Buena Vista. No such cause of action lies against the moving defendant. The second cause of action is based on the “Donnelly Act,” section 340 of the General Business Law. The alleged grievance relates to the attempt to monopolize the business of motion picture distribution and display in an area in New Jersey in favor of the defendant Walter Beade Theatres, Inc., and against the plaintiff. Free competition in the business, trade or commerce or the furnishing of any service in this State is the emphasis and objective of the statute and not contracts having their impact outside the State. As stated in Leader Theatre Corp. v. Rand-force Amusement Corp. (186 Misc. 280, 283, affd. 273 App. Div. 844): “ It is now well established that States, under their police power, can enact and implement legislation which affects interstate commerce, when such commerce has significant local consequences.” The sale of rights here is of no overriding concern to the State since the significant local consequences occur in another State. (Loew’s v. Radio Hawaii, 20 Misc 2d 587.) The plaintiff’s contention that the local consequences occurring in New Jersey are a “ slight exception ” in relation to the alleged fact that the conspiracy otherwise was consummated here, is erroneous and disregards the basic objective of the statute to regulate the local consequences so as to encourage free competition in this State in relation to intrastate business.

The motion is granted dismissing the complaint as to the moving defendant.

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

Vincent A. Lupiano, J.

Defendant Buena Vista Distribution Company, Inc., moves for dismissal of the complaint pursuant [173]*173to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Buies of Civil Practice. In the first cause of action plaintiff alleges claimed interference by the defendant Walter Beade Theatres, Inc., with plaintiff’s business opportunities with Buena Vista. No such cause of action lies against the moving defendant. The second cause of action is based on the “Donnelly Act,” section 340 of the General Business Law. The alleged grievance relates to the attempt to monopolize the business of motion picture distribution and display in an area in New Jersey in favor of the defendant Walter Beade Theatres, Inc., and against the plaintiff. Free competition in the business, trade or commerce or the furnishing of any service in this State is the emphasis and objective of the statute and not contracts having their impact outside the State. As stated in Leader Theatre Corp. v. Rand-force Amusement Corp. (186 Misc. 280, 283, affd. 273 App. Div. 844): “ It is now well established that States, under their police power, can enact and implement legislation which affects interstate commerce, when such commerce has significant local consequences.” The sale of rights here is of no overriding concern to the State since the significant local consequences occur in another State. (Loew’s v. Radio Hawaii, 20 Misc 2d 587.) The plaintiff’s contention that the local consequences occurring in New Jersey are a “ slight exception ” in relation to the alleged fact that the conspiracy otherwise was consummated here, is erroneous and disregards the basic objective of the statute to regulate the local consequences so as to encourage free competition in this State in relation to intrastate business.

The motion is granted dismissing the complaint as to the moving defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 Misc. 2d 172, 237 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-walter-reade-theatres-inc-nysupct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack