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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

222 A.D.2d 281 (Maurizio v. Rendal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related