Kings Creations Ltd. v. Conde Nast Publications Inc.

34 A.D.2d 935, 311 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 935 (Kings Creations Ltd. v. Conde Nast Publications 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
Kings Creations Ltd. v. Conde Nast Publications Inc., 34 A.D.2d 935, 311 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Order entered March 3, 1970, unanimously modified, on the law, [936]*936with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant, to also dismiss the second cause of action, and order otherwise affirmed, with leave, however, to plaintiff to apply to Special Term for permission to replead. (See CPLR 3211, subd. [e]; Cushman é Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 25 A D 2d 133; Moss v. Kadish, 33 A D 2d 1008.) Although, admittedly, there was an error on defendant’s part in the mismatching of a ring designed exclusively for plaintiff with the descriptive material and price pertaining to a ring offered for sale by another advertiser, the plaintiff’s allegations do not establish a cause of action grounded in negligence. However, the plaintiff may have a cause of action for breach of contract arising out of its advertising agreement with defendant or for disparagement of a product (see Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 7 N Y 2d 435; Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. Shields, 171 N. Y. 384; Lampert v. Edelman, 24 A D 2d 562; Payrolls é Tabulating v. Sperry Rand, 22 A D 2d 595), and, therefore, plaintiff is given leave to apply for permission to replead. A cause of action for product disparagement must show special damages. (See Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Pub. Co., supra; Marlin Fire Arms Co. v. Shields, supra-, Squire Records V. Vanguard, Recording Soc., 25 A D 2d 190, affd. 19 N Y 2d 797.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, McGivern, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Related

McNeary v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
286 A.D.2d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Construction Technology v. Lockformer Co., Inc.
704 F. Supp. 1212 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Indiana Construction Corp. v. Chicago Tribune Co.
648 F. Supp. 1419 (N.D. Indiana, 1986)
Demuth Development Corp. v. Merck & Co., Inc.
432 F. Supp. 990 (E.D. New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.2d 935, 311 N.Y.S.2d 757, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kings-creations-ltd-v-conde-nast-publications-inc-nyappdiv-1970.