Siegel v. Esquire, Inc.

4 A.D.2d 477, 167 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4230

This text of 4 A.D.2d 477 (Siegel v. Esquire, 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
Siegel v. Esquire, Inc., 4 A.D.2d 477, 167 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff has alleged that defendant used her picture without her consent for the purpose of trade to illustrate an article entitled “ The Miracle of Face Planing ” in the magazine Coronet, in a manner forbidden by sections 50 and 51 of the Civil Rights Law. However, the copy of the article annexed to the complaint and made a part thereof contradicts such eonelusory allegations (Hays v. American Defense Soc., 252 N. Y. 266; Salomon v. Mahoney, 271 App. Div. 478, affd. 297 N. Y. 643). The picture, examined in conjunction with the text of the article, appears on its face to be an illustration of a newsworthy article on a new medical development, a matter of legitimate public interest (Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, 281 App. Div. 240). Plaintiff urges in her brief that as in Griffin v. Medical Soc. of State of N. Y. (7 Misc 2d 549) the article was really an advertisement in disguise to publicize for their own pecuniary gain the doctors mentioned in the article and the machine they had developed. This cannot be inferred from the complaint as it now stands. If it be so, plaintiff must set forth facts sufficient to support the eonelusory allegation that her picture and the annexed article were used for the purpose of trade. The order appealed from should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with leave to serve an amended complaint.

Botein, J. P., Rabin, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted, with leave to serve an amended complaint, within 20 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon the attorney for the respondent.

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

Related

Salomon v. Mahoney
75 N.E.2d 749 (New York Court of Appeals, 1947)
Hays v. American Defense Society, Inc.
169 N.E. 380 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
Oma v. Hillman Periodicals, Inc.
281 A.D. 240 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)
Griffin v. Medical Society of State
7 Misc. 2d 549 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 A.D.2d 477, 167 N.Y.S.2d 246, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-esquire-inc-nyappdiv-1957.