Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tom KEIFER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 5, 2003, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate triable issues of fact concerning their recording contract, which provided termination as the exclusive remedy against defendant. Nor does the record reveal a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with defendant's decision not to release the album. Plaintiffs' claim of bad faith would imply an obligation inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship (see Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86). Not only did the contract give defendant unilateral control over release of an album, but defendant also retained the right to accept or reject plaintiffs' songs for inclusion in the album.
Plaintiffs are precluded from recovering reliance damages in light of the existence of a valid and enforceable written contract (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 388, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190), and the failure to show any expectation of compensation or recovery of losses in connection with touring costs had the album been released. Finally, since plaintiffs never delivered an album, there were no costs incurred in connection with recording, and defendant's contractual obligation to release the recording fund or any part of it as an advance never arose. Plaintiffs have no claim to the balance of that fund.
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 15, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)