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
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 23, 1970·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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).

34 A.D.2d 935 (Kings Creations Ltd. v. Conde Nast Publications Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)