Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.

16 A.D.3d 228, 790 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2697

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 228 (Greenfield v. Philles 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

Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., 16 A.D.3d 228, 790 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered September 8, 2003, which, on remittitur for recalculation of damages, denied plaintiffs’ claim of entitlement to royalties for synchronization recordings, including home-use audio-visual products such as videocassettes and DVDs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[229]*229Following the clear and unambiguous decision of the Court of Appeals (Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562 [2002]), the IAS court properly rejected the claim that plaintiffs should be permitted to establish damages for royalties on sales to the public of home-use audio-visual products, such as videocassettes, laser discs and DVDs. The Court of Appeals determined that the 1963 agreement between plaintiffs and Philles Records was “susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation”: that defendants alone were entitled to license and retain all profits from synchronized audio-visual media (such as movies, DVDs, videocassettes), inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to retain their rights thereto in the agreement, and that the calculation of damages for royalties should be limited to “sale[s] of records, compact discs and other audio reproductions” (id. at 572, 573).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered September 8, 2003, which, on remittitur for recalculation of damages, denied plaintiffs’ claim of entitlement to royalties for synchronization recordings, including home-use audio-visual products such as videocassettes and DVDs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[229]*229Following the clear and unambiguous decision of the Court of Appeals (Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562 [2002]), the IAS court properly rejected the claim that plaintiffs should be permitted to establish damages for royalties on sales to the public of home-use audio-visual products, such as videocassettes, laser discs and DVDs. The Court of Appeals determined that the 1963 agreement between plaintiffs and Philles Records was “susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation”: that defendants alone were entitled to license and retain all profits from synchronized audio-visual media (such as movies, DVDs, videocassettes), inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to retain their rights thereto in the agreement, and that the calculation of damages for royalties should be limited to “sale[s] of records, compact discs and other audio reproductions” (id. at 572, 573).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 228, 790 N.Y.S.2d 604, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfield-v-philles-records-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack