Vidor v. Serlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vidor v. Serlin

7 A.D.2d 978, 184 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9466

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 978 (Vidor v. Serlin) 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

Vidor v. Serlin, 7 A.D.2d 978, 184 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to dismiss the cross complaint of the defendant Serlin against the defendant Nijinsky, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. On this record the 1940 agreement between Bass and Mrs. Nijinsky did not transfer any rights in the book “Nijinsky”, to Serlin. The dramatic rights were not separately assignable without consent. Nor was the proof sufficient to establish that Mrs. Nijinsky, with full knowledge of what had gone before, had ratified the assignment. In any event, whatever rights Serlin or his assignor might have acquired were lost as the result of the breach of Bass’ managerial obligations under the purported agreement, assuming that the initial agreement was not voidable on the various grounds urged by defendant Nijinsky. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to dismiss the cross complaint of the defendant Serlin against the defendant Nijinsky, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents. On this record the 1940 agreement between Bass and Mrs. Nijinsky did not transfer any rights in the book “Nijinsky”, to Serlin. The dramatic rights were not separately assignable without consent. Nor was the proof sufficient to establish that Mrs. Nijinsky, with full knowledge of what had gone before, had ratified the assignment. In any event, whatever rights Serlin or his assignor might have acquired were lost as the result of the breach of Bass’ managerial obligations under the purported agreement, assuming that the initial agreement was not voidable on the various grounds urged by defendant Nijinsky. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 978, 184 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vidor-v-serlin-nyappdiv-1959.