Saja Music Co. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saja Music Co. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.

212 A.D.2d 370, 622 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 918

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 370 (Saja Music Co. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 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

Saja Music Co. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 212 A.D.2d 370, 622 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 27, 1994, which granted the motion by defendant Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. ("Sony”) for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered May 26, 1994, unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

We find that the IAS Court, in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint seeking monetary damages for tortious interference with contract, properly determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that defendant Sony had "intentionally induced” a breach of the Recording Artist Agreement between the plaintiffs and recording artist "Stevie B.”, a crucial element of a claim for tortious interference (see, Click Model Mgt. v Williams, 167 AD2d 279, lv denied 77 NY2d 805). The record reveals that Stevie B. voluntarily sent a July 2, 1990 Notice of Termination to plaintiffs citing what he perceived to be plaintiffs’ pre-existing breaches and formally declaring that he considered their agreements to be "void ab initio and of no force and effect”, and, two months thereafter, independently solicited and initiated discussions concerning a new recording agreement with numerous record companies, including defendant Sony, which subsequently resulted in his $1.6 million recording contract with Sony (Tayeh v Intercoastal Capital Corp., 176 AD2d 719, 720; State Enters. v Southridge Coop. Section 1, 18 AD2d 226).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered May 27, 1994, which granted the motion by defendant Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. ("Sony”) for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order of the same court and Justice, entered May 26, 1994, unanimously dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment, without costs.

We find that the IAS Court, in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint seeking monetary damages for tortious interference with contract, properly determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that defendant Sony had "intentionally induced” a breach of the Recording Artist Agreement between the plaintiffs and recording artist "Stevie B.”, a crucial element of a claim for tortious interference (see, Click Model Mgt. v Williams, 167 AD2d 279, lv denied 77 NY2d 805). The record reveals that Stevie B. voluntarily sent a July 2, 1990 Notice of Termination to plaintiffs citing what he perceived to be plaintiffs’ pre-existing breaches and formally declaring that he considered their agreements to be "void ab initio and of no force and effect”, and, two months thereafter, independently solicited and initiated discussions concerning a new recording agreement with numerous record companies, including defendant Sony, which subsequently resulted in his $1.6 million recording contract with Sony (Tayeh v Intercoastal Capital Corp., 176 AD2d 719, 720; State Enters. v Southridge Coop. Section 1, 18 AD2d 226).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 370, 622 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saja-music-co-v-sony-music-entertainment-inc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack