Orr v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orr v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc.

167 A.D.2d 153, 561 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13319

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 153 (Orr v. Kiamesha Concord, 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

Orr v. Kiamesha Concord, Inc., 167 A.D.2d 153, 561 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 31, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment striking plaintiffs claim for damages relating to lost earnings, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted only to the extent of striking the claim for $1,512 in lost earnings related to the Brazilian movie prospect, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a voice-over recording artist, had auditioned, won the job, was promised a standard union contract and was already scheduled for her first recording session in connection with the Anglicized version of the Japanese "Bumboo” cartoon series when she suffered injury at defendant’s hotel, which allegedly caused her to lose the job. Even in the absence of an executed contract, plaintiff is able to demonstrate the existence of a "stable and ready market” for her services, the performance of which was interrupted by the injury (see, Hanna v Potter, 10 AD2d 753). Mathematical precision is not required in order to establish the "[reasonable certainty” of lost earnings (Steitz v Gifford, 280 NY 15, 20), in accordance with industry standards. This is not the case, however, with respect to the Brazilian movie prospect, where plaintiff was unable to audition and we have only the producer’s speculation that she would have been perfect for the role. Concur— Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered January 31, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment striking plaintiffs claim for damages relating to lost earnings, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion granted only to the extent of striking the claim for $1,512 in lost earnings related to the Brazilian movie prospect, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a voice-over recording artist, had auditioned, won the job, was promised a standard union contract and was already scheduled for her first recording session in connection with the Anglicized version of the Japanese "Bumboo” cartoon series when she suffered injury at defendant’s hotel, which allegedly caused her to lose the job. Even in the absence of an executed contract, plaintiff is able to demonstrate the existence of a "stable and ready market” for her services, the performance of which was interrupted by the injury (see, Hanna v Potter, 10 AD2d 753). Mathematical precision is not required in order to establish the "[reasonable certainty” of lost earnings (Steitz v Gifford, 280 NY 15, 20), in accordance with industry standards. This is not the case, however, with respect to the Brazilian movie prospect, where plaintiff was unable to audition and we have only the producer’s speculation that she would have been perfect for the role. Concur— Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 153, 561 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-v-kiamesha-concord-inc-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack