From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Silvester v. Time-Warner, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 2005
14 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

4546

January 25, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2003, which granted defendants' CPLR 3211 (a) motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.


Plaintiff recording artists sue to recover damages allegedly occasioned by defendant recording companies' release of certain of their recordings for transmission over the Internet in digital format. The documentary evidence, however, demonstrates conclusively that plaintiffs contracted away any rights they had to the subject recordings, without reservation, and, indeed, expressly conveyed, in each of the governing contracts entered into with defendants, the right to exploit the subject recordings by any method, including methods unknown at the time of contracting ( see Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., 98 NY2d 562). These arm's length contracts are entirely dispositive of plaintiffs' various claims. [ See 1 Misc 3d 250.]


Summaries of

Silvester v. Time-Warner, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 25, 2005
14 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Silvester v. Time-Warner, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:TONY SILVESTER et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 25, 2005

Citations

14 A.D.3d 430 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
787 N.Y.S.2d 870

Citing Cases

Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc. v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co.

); Silvester v. Time Warner, Inc., 1 Misc.3d 250, 763 N.Y.S.2d 912, 918 (Sup.Ct.2003) aff'd sub nom.…

Conwill v. Arthur Andersen LLP

Defendants Veera (motion sequence 004) and Sumitomo Bank (motion sequence 009) move to dismiss plaintiffs'…