Grodin v. Liberty Cable

244 A.D.2d 153, 664 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11097
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 6, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 153 (Grodin v. Liberty Cable) 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
Grodin v. Liberty Cable, 244 A.D.2d 153, 664 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered September 13, 1996, which, in an action to recover damages for the unauthorized reuse of plaintiffs image and voice in a television commercial, denied defendants licensees’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and denied defendant licensors’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them and for partial summary judgment as to liability on their cross claim for indemnity against the licensees, unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss plaintiffs third and fourth causes of action for negligence and unjust enrichment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

It being clear, as the IAS Court found, that defendants made no effort to obtain plaintiffs consent to the reuse of his image and voice, either through the means set forth in the Screen Actors Guild agreement or otherwise, plaintiff cannot be held to the provisions of that agreement waiving the protections of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (compare, Welch v Carson Prods. Group, 791 F2d 13, cert denied 479 US 1007). To hold otherwise would be to deprive plaintiff of “appropriate compensation” for the unauthorized reuse of his image and voice (see, supra, at 17). The IAS Court also correctly found that whether the reuse of plaintiffs likeness was too incidental to afford any viable breach of privacy claims, whether the licensing agreement prohibited the commercial in which plaintiff appeared, and [154]*154whether the licensees obtained the licensors’ consent to the commercial, are all issues of fact. However, it was error not to dismiss plaintiffs causes of action for negligence and unjust enrichment, there being no common-law right of privacy in New York (see, Stephano v News Group Pubis., 64 NY2d 174, 183; Hampton v Guare, 195 AD2d 366, lv denied 82 NY2d 659). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

Related

Richardson v. Proctor & Gamble Co.
176 N.Y.S.3d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Sondik v. Kimmel
131 A.D.3d 1041 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Myskina v. Condé Nast Publications, Inc.
386 F. Supp. 2d 409 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Doe v. Darien Lake Theme Park & Camping Resort, Inc.
277 A.D.2d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 A.D.2d 153, 664 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grodin-v-liberty-cable-nyappdiv-1997.