Lightscape Productions, Inc. v. New Zealand Meat Producers Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lightscape Productions, Inc. v. New Zealand Meat Producers Board

183 A.D.2d 499

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

DecidedMay 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A.D.2d 499 (Lightscape Productions, Inc. v. New Zealand Meat Producers Board) 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

Lightscape Productions, Inc. v. New Zealand Meat Producers Board, 183 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered December 11, 1991, which denied both plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks payment from defendant, as the principal of H.J. Delaney Advertising Company, for a promotional video plaintiff made pursuant to its oral agreement with Delaney. The court properly denied the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment because questions of fact exist as to whether Delaney was acting as defendant’s agent or as an independent contractor (Columbia Broadcasting Sys. v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 522 F2d 369 [2d Cir 1975]). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered December 11, 1991, which denied both plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks payment from defendant, as the principal of H.J. Delaney Advertising Company, for a promotional video plaintiff made pursuant to its oral agreement with Delaney. The court properly denied the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment because questions of fact exist as to whether Delaney was acting as defendant’s agent or as an independent contractor (Columbia Broadcasting Sys. v Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 522 F2d 369 [2d Cir 1975]). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lightscape-productions-inc-v-new-zealand-meat-producers-board-nyappdiv-1992.