Squire Records, Inc. v. Vanguard Recording Soc. Inc. Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1967 |
| Citation | 279 N.Y.S.2d 737,19 N.Y.2d 797,226 N.E.2d 542 |
| Parties | , 226 N.E.2d 542 SQUIRE RECORDS, INC., Respondent, v. VANGUARD RECORDING SOCIETY, INC., et al., Appellants, and Michael Standard et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 25 A.D.2d 190, 268 N.Y.S.2d 251.
The plaintiff alleged in its first cause of action that in 1959 certain recording company, which engaged in business of recording performances of artists and selling and distributing records made from those recordings, entered into an agreement with defendant singer, by terms of which she was to record performances on master tapes, to which recording company was to have the exclusive right, title, and interest, and that the recording company was to sell and distribute the records made from the master tapes and pay certain specified royalties to defendant singer, and that in 1963 the recording company leased the master tapes containing the performances recorded by the defendant singer in 1959 to the plaintiff for a term of years and renewals thereof, and that in October, 1963 the plaintiff reproduced a phonograph record, bearing number 33001, therefrom, and sold and distributed it, and that since October, 1963 the corporate defendant, which was also engaged in sale of records featuring performances of defendant singer and was in direct and sharp competition with the plaintiff, and the other defendants conspired together to prevent plaintiff from exercising its right to manufacture record No. 33001 from the 1959 master tapes and to obstruct the sale and distribution of the record by inducing belief, creating the impression, circulating reports, and sending letters to the effect that the production, sale and distribution of record No. 33001 was unlawful and illegal, and that representations, reports, letters, memoranda, and press releases prepared and issued by defendants with respect to the record were false, deceitful, and evasive as the defendants well knew, and that by reason of the unlawful conduct of the defendants in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy, the plaintiff had been and would be damaged in reputation, good will, and ability to preserve profitable financial status, and had lost customers who had previously been accustomed to deal with and purchase phonograph records of defendant singer in considerable quantity, among which customers were named corporations which had suspended the sale of record No. 33001,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bay City-Abrahams Bros., Inc. v. Estee Lauder, Inc.
...268 N.Y.S. 2d 251 (1 Dept.) appeal dismissed, 17 N.Y.2d 870, 271 N.Y.S.2d 301, 218 N.E. 2d 336 (1966), aff'd mem., 19 N.Y.2d 797, 279 N.Y.S.2d 737, 226 N.E.2d 542 (1967); Morrison v. National Broadcasting Company, 24 A.D.2d 284, 266 N. Y.S.2d 406, rev'd on other grounds, 19 N.Y.2d 453, 280 ......
-
Empire State Bldg. Co. v. N.Y. Skyline, Inc. (In re N.Y. Skyline, Inc.)
...other motives, e.g., profit, self-interest, business advantage, there is no recovery under tort Prima facie.”), aff'd,19 N.Y.2d 797, 279 N.Y.S.2d 737, 226 N.E.2d 542 (1967). Meritless or vexatious acts, without more, do not spell out a claim sounding in prima facie tort. Howard v. Block, 90......
-
Douglas v. N.Y. State Adirondack Park Agency
...Inc. v. Vanguard Recording Soc., Inc., 25 A.D.2d 190, 268 N.Y.S.2d 251, 253–54 (1st Dep't 1966), order aff'd,19 N.Y.2d 797, 279 N.Y.S.2d 737, 226 N.E.2d 542 (N.Y.1967). Third, with regard to the third reason offered by the AC Defendants for the dismissal of this claim, the Court finds that,......
-
Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindner
...358, 41 S.Ct. 499, 500, 65 L.Ed. 983; Squire Records v. Vanguard Recording Soc., 25 A.D.2d 190, 268 N.Y.S.2d 251, affd. 19 N.Y.2d 797, 279 N.Y.S.2d 737, 226 N.E.2d 542; Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, at p. 287, 266 N.Y.S.2d 406; 2 N.Y. PJI 624), by which is meant "that the ge......