Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. v. Wolman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. v. Wolman

47 A.D.2d 872, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 1975·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 17, 1974 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the amount of $55,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements and judgment entered thereon on December 19, 1974, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion for summary judgment denied, and judgment vacated, with $60 costs and disbursements to appellants. The record presents issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Some of those issues are as follows: Whether the use of the allegedly plagiarized materials totaling approximately-1,200 pages constituted a breach of the warranty of originality; whether use of such materials was proper — coming within the doctrine of "Fair Use”; whether the proper consents were obtained, thereby permitting use of the subject materials; and whether plaintiff’s rejection of the manuscript was based upon its good faith determination that the materials were not satisfactory. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 17, 1974 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in the amount of $55,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements and judgment entered thereon on December 19, 1974, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion for summary judgment denied, and judgment vacated, with $60 costs and disbursements to appellants. The record presents issues of fact which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Some of those issues are as follows: Whether the use of the allegedly plagiarized materials totaling approximately-1,200 pages constituted a breach of the warranty of originality; whether use of such materials was proper — coming within the doctrine of "Fair Use”; whether the proper consents were obtained, thereby permitting use of the subject materials; and whether plaintiff’s rejection of the manuscript was based upon its good faith determination that the materials were not satisfactory. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer and Lane, JJ.

Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. v. Wolman, 47 A.D.2d 872, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

47 A.D.2d 872 (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. v. Wolman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.