Bunnell v. Keystone Varnish Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bunnell v. Keystone Varnish Co.

254 A.D. 885, 5 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8174

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 885 (Bunnell v. Keystone Varnish Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bunnell v. Keystone Varnish Co., 254 A.D. 885, 5 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action alleged in the amended complaint, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, affirmed, in so far as an appeal therefrom is taken, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The plaintiff has no cause of action [886]*886on guasi-contract. An action under section 51 of the Civil Bights Law is the plaintiff’s sole remedy for the unauthorized use of her name (Binns v. Vitagraph Co., 210 N. Y. 51) and the alleged unjust enrichment of the defendant is a part of that cause of action. (Cf. Franklin v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 246 App. Div. 35, 37; affd., 271 N. Y. 554.) We affirm the order because the second cause of action, with which alone this motion is concerned, states a cause of action under the Civil Rights Law. The first cause of action is to the same effect except that it omits the allegation of unjust enrichment. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur. [167 Misc. 707.]

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

Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action alleged in the amended complaint, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, affirmed, in so far as an appeal therefrom is taken, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. The plaintiff has no cause of action [886]*886on guasi-contract. An action under section 51 of the Civil Bights Law is the plaintiff’s sole remedy for the unauthorized use of her name (Binns v. Vitagraph Co., 210 N. Y. 51) and the alleged unjust enrichment of the defendant is a part of that cause of action. (Cf. Franklin v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 246 App. Div. 35, 37; affd., 271 N. Y. 554.) We affirm the order because the second cause of action, with which alone this motion is concerned, states a cause of action under the Civil Rights Law. The first cause of action is to the same effect except that it omits the allegation of unjust enrichment. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur. [167 Misc. 707.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 885, 5 N.Y.S.2d 415, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunnell-v-keystone-varnish-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack