Cohen v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.

295 A.D.2d 232, 743 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573

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

DecidedJune 20, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 232 (Cohen v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc.) 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

Cohen v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 295 A.D.2d 232, 743 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 14, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to [233]*233dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover royalties. However, the documentary evidence, namely, a contract dated June 24, 1968, as amended on February 11, 1970, shows that defendant’s obligation to pay royalties ceased more than six years before plaintiff brought this action. Therefore, plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred (CPLR 213 [2]; Rachmani Corp. v 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp., 211 AD2d 262, 267), as is his claim for an accounting (CPLR 213 [1]; Matter of Barabash, 37 AD2d 931, 932, revd on other grounds 31 NY2d 76).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 14, 2001, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to [233]*233dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to recover royalties. However, the documentary evidence, namely, a contract dated June 24, 1968, as amended on February 11, 1970, shows that defendant’s obligation to pay royalties ceased more than six years before plaintiff brought this action. Therefore, plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred (CPLR 213 [2]; Rachmani Corp. v 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp., 211 AD2d 262, 267), as is his claim for an accounting (CPLR 213 [1]; Matter of Barabash, 37 AD2d 931, 932, revd on other grounds 31 NY2d 76).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 232, 743 N.Y.S.2d 717, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-warner-bros-records-inc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack