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.
Paul M. Ellington, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 12, 2010, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the first, second, sixth and eighth causes of action for repudiation, rescission, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment, respectively, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff failed to set forth a basis for terminating the parties' copyright royalties agreement. Viacom's sale of defendant Famous Music, a party to the agreement, to defendant Sony/ATV did not repudiate the agreement by assigning plaintiff's rights and rendering Famous incapable of performing its obligations. In any event, an assignment is permissible in the absence of an express prohibition (see Eisner Computer Solutions v Gluckstern, 293 A.D.2d 289 [2002]; Matter of Stralem, 303 A.D.2d 120, 122 [2003] ). Plaintiff's conclusory characterization of the agreement as an unassignable personal services contract (see Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley–Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, 482 [2006], cert dismissed 548 U.S. 940 [2006] ) was contradicted by the overall tenor of the agreement, which was cast as a sale of “assets” and did not provide for the management of plaintiff's artistic career or talents. The extraordinary remedy of rescission was unwarranted since, among other reasons, there was an adequate remedy at law (see Rudman v. Cowles Communications, 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13 [1972] ).
The fiduciary breach claim was duplicative of the contract claims (see William Kaufman Org. v. Graham & James, 269 A.D.2d 171, 173 [2000] ), plaintiff's artificial separation of the royalty mis-routing allegation from the “negative adjustment” contract claims notwithstanding. The unjust enrichment claim was not viable in light of the undisputedly valid contract claims (see EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 5 NY3d 11, 23 [2005] ).
We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 5257
Decided: June 07, 2011
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)