Shatriya v. Gilden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shatriya v. Gilden

50 A.D.3d 586, 855 N.Y.S.2d 366

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

DecidedApril 29, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 586 (Shatriya v. Gilden) 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

Shatriya v. Gilden, 50 A.D.3d 586, 855 N.Y.S.2d 366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered August 28, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for breach of contract and a permanent injunction as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that an issue of fact as to the meaning of the term “PR” or “public relations” precludes summary judgment on the cause of action for breach of a contract allegedly prohibiting the posting of plaintiff model’s photographs on the Internet. Injunctive relief may be available should plaintiff prevail on his cause of action for breach of contract and show that damages are an inadequate remedy. We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ. [See 16 Misc 3d 1137(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51717(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered August 28, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for breach of contract and a permanent injunction as against it, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that an issue of fact as to the meaning of the term “PR” or “public relations” precludes summary judgment on the cause of action for breach of a contract allegedly prohibiting the posting of plaintiff model’s photographs on the Internet. Injunctive relief may be available should plaintiff prevail on his cause of action for breach of contract and show that damages are an inadequate remedy. We have considered and rejected appellant’s other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley and Catterson, JJ. [See 16 Misc 3d 1137(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51717(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 586, 855 N.Y.S.2d 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shatriya-v-gilden-nyappdiv-2008.