Red Wing Productions, Inc. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1961
• Docket Number: BROADCASTING-PARAMOUNT
• Citation: 213 N.Y.S.2d 315
• Parties: RED WING PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICANTHEATRES, INC., General Motors Corp. and Bing Crosby Productions, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 315

213 N.Y.S.2d 315

RED WING PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BROADCASTING-PARAMOUNT THEATRES, INC., General Motors Corp. and Bing Crosby Productions, Inc., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County, Part III.

March 17, 1961.

Marshall, Bratter, Greene, Allison & Tucker, New York City, Warren S. Tenney, Raphael G. Scobey, Samuel C . Cohn, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, New York City, Clarence Fried, New York City, Robert G. Desmond, New York City, of counsel, for defendants, American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc. and others.

LOUIS J. CAPOZZOLI, Justice.

Plaintiff is the producer of a television program, known as 'The Garry Moore Show', which is shown weekly over the Columbia Broadcasting network. It had entered into a written agreement with one, Carol Lawrence, a well-known and highly paid performing artist, for personal services on 'The Garry Moore Show'. She is not a party to this action.

The defendant, American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc. (hereinafter known as ABC) owns and operates a television station in New York City and also operates and controls a television network over which a program known as 'The Bing Crosby Show' is telecasted. The defendant, General Motors Corporation is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and sponsored 'The Bing Crosby Show'. The defendant, Bing Crosby Productions, has not been served.

Since about May of 1960 Miss Lawrence has been under written contract with the plaintiff to appear on a number of broadcasts of plaintiff's television program, known as 'The Garry Moore Show', during the 1960-1961 television season. One of these appearances is scheduled for April 4, 1961.

One of the contract terms, hereinafter called the exclusivity clause, is that Miss Lawrence 'will not participate in any manner whatsoever on any other television or radio program broadcast at any time within the three week period immediately preceding and the one week period following the date of the network broadcast of the program.'

Some time after this contract was entered into Miss Lawrence agreed to perform on the Crosby show, sponsored by the defendant, General Motors, and to be telecast on March 6, 1961, over the facilities of ABC. She prerecorded her performance on tape. The defendants postponed the date of the telecast to March 20, 1961. This date, of course, is within the exclusivity period covered by the agreement between the plaintiff and Miss Lawrence, it being six days short of three weeks prior to April 4th, when the Garry Moore Show is to be telecast.

Plaintiff demands judgment restraining the defendants jointly and severally from interfering with plaintiff's contractual relations with Miss Lawrence and, more specifically, enjoining the defendants from telecasting the said Crosby show on March 20, 1961.

This action has been tried on the theory that there was a violation of the rights of the plaintiff by the acts of the defendants in interfering with the contractual relations between the plaintiff and Miss Lawrence.

The established rule in this state, bearing upon the theory of the plaintiff, is 'that if one maliciously interferes with a contract between two parties, and induces one of them to break that contract, to the injury of the other, the party injured can maintain an action against the wrongdoer'. Lamb v. S. Cheney & Son, 227 N.Y. 418, 125 N.E. 817, 818.

It is true that in the last cited case the Court pointed out that the word malicious, as used in its opinion, means a wrongful act, done intentionally, without just cause or excuse, further, that it does not mean actual malice or ill-will, but consists in the intentional doing of a wrongful act without legal justification. Also see Campbell v. Gates, 236 N.Y. 457, 141 N.E. 914; Hornstein v. Podwitz, 254 N.Y. 443, 173 N.E. 674, 84 A.L.R. 1. This principle of law is in effect a limitation upon the doctrine of freedom of contract which is imposed to promote justice and fair-dealing and to prevent wrongs. Reiner v. North American Newspaper Alliance, 259 N.Y. 250, 181 N.E. 561, 83 A.L.R. 23.

With these principles in mind the Court has considered all of the evidence in the case and is convinced that no cause of action has been established by the plaintiff against these defendants.

It is conceded that these defendants knew nothing about the exclusivity clause contained in the contract between the plaintiff and Miss Lawrence, at the time that Miss Lawrence entered into her contract with 'The Bing Crosby Show'. In view of that fact there is a total failure of proof on the part of the plaintiff as to a vital element in this type of action, namely, knowledge on the part of the defendants. For, while it is true that actual malice or ill-will is not required, there must be knowledge on the part of the defendants of plaintiff's rights and an intent must be shown on their part to interfere therewith.

In order to meet this failure of proof the plaintiff argues that the defendants had knowledge as of January 16, 1961 of the exclusivity clause and therefore, since the scheduled broadcast which is sought to be enjoined is set for March 20, 1961, this Court should grant the relief sought.

In support of this contention the plaintiff has cited two cases. Westinghouse...