Maurizio v. Rendal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maurizio v. Rendal

222 A.D.2d 281, 635 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12860

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 281 (Maurizio v. Rendal) 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

Maurizio v. Rendal, 222 A.D.2d 281, 635 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to commencing an action in the Federal courts, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since plaintiff is claiming to be a co-author of the work at issue, regardless of how the language in the complaint is couched, the complaint is preempted by Federal Copyright Act (17 USC § 101 et seq.) and was properly dismissed (see, Lieberman v Estate of Chayefsky, 535 F Supp 90). The Federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over such claims (28 USC § 1338 [a]). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 21, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to commencing an action in the Federal courts, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since plaintiff is claiming to be a co-author of the work at issue, regardless of how the language in the complaint is couched, the complaint is preempted by Federal Copyright Act (17 USC § 101 et seq.) and was properly dismissed (see, Lieberman v Estate of Chayefsky, 535 F Supp 90). The Federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over such claims (28 USC § 1338 [a]). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 281, 635 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurizio-v-rendal-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack