Stillman v. Paramount Pictures Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1959 |
| Citation | 157 N.E.2d 728,184 N.Y.S.2d 856,5 N.Y.2d 994 |
| Parties | , 157 N.E.2d 728 Lou STILLMAN, Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION et al., Respondents, and William Perlberg et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 2 A.D.2d 18, 153 N.Y.S.2d 190.
Action was brought for damages for invasion of right of privacy and for libel because of statement of character in moving picture, that he would go to the plaintiff's gymnasium and get a punch-drunk fighter. From an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, Samuel H. Hofstader, J., entered January 4, 1956, in the New York County Clerk's Office, 1 Misc.2d 108, 147 N.Y.S.2d 504, certain of the defendants appealed and from so much of the order as denied motion to dismiss second cause of action and to strike portions of the complaint, and from so much of the order as granted the motion to dismiss the first cause of action, the plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Division, 2 A.D.2d 18, 153 N.Y.S.2d 190, Cox, J., modified and affirmed the order of the Special Term and held that cause of action based on plaintiff's claim of violation of the Civil Rights Law, Consol.Laws, c. 6, was properly dismissed and that special damages should be alleged in the cause of action for libel. Breitel, J., dissented.
The Appellate Division, 2 A.D.2d 841, 156 N.Y.S.2d 145, on October 9, 1956, denied motion for reargument and granted motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The Appellate Division, 2 A.D.2d 886, 157 N.Y.S.2d 899, granted motion for reargument, and, on reargument, dismissed as academic the decision of October 9, 1956, and the motion of September 25, 1956, insofar as it sought leave to appeal to Court of Appeals, and otherwise denied that motion.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, and a motion was made to dismiss the appeal.
The Court of Appeals, 3 N.Y.2d 1018, 170 N.Y.S.2d 353, granted motion to dismiss appeal and dismissed appeal unless, within ten days, plaintiff should serve and file required undertaking on appeal and pay ten dollars costs, in which events motion should be denied.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Netzer v. Continuity Graphic Associates, Inc., 93 Civ. 5870 (RWS).
...Civil Rights Law); Stillman v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2 A.D.2d 18, 153 N.Y.S.2d 190, 191 (1st Dept.1956), aff'd 5 N.Y.2d 994, 184 N.Y.S.2d 856, 157 N.E.2d 728 (1959) (§§ 50-51 "do not prohibit the incidental, momentary and isolated use" of a person's name in a fictional movie); Man v. Wa......
-
Delan by Delan v. CBS, Inc.
...fleeting and incidental to be actionable (see Stillman v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2 A.D.2d 18, 153 N.Y.S.2d 190, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 994, 184 N.Y.S.2d 856, 157 N.E.2d 728; University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 22 A.D.2d 452, 256 N.Y.S.2d 301, affd. 15 N.Y.2d 940,......
-
Beverley v. Choices Women's Medical Center, Inc.
...v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 1 Misc.2d 108, 147 N.Y.S.2d 504, mod. 2 A.D.2d 18, 153 N.Y.S.2d 190, aff'd without opn. 5 N.Y.2d 994, 184 N.Y.S.2d 856, 157 N.E.2d 728). Nevertheless, Choices seeks to escape liability under Civil Rights Law § 51 on the ground that the theme of its calendar--the......
-
University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., CENTURY-FOX
...are of that fleeting and incidental nature which the Civil Rights Law does not find offensive (Stillman v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 5 N.Y.2d 994, 184 N.Y.S.2d 856, 157 N.E.2d 728; Damron v. Doubleday, Doran & Co., Inc., 133 Misc. 302, 231 N.Y.S. 444, affd. 226 App.Div. 796, 234 N.Y.S. 773;......