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.
Daniel Edward SONDIK, also known as Dovid Yehuda Sondik, appellant, v. James C. KIMMEL, also known as Jimmy Kimmel, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 for invasion of the plaintiff's right of privacy, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated December 14, 2011, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) which were to dismiss the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for the nonconsensual use of a video clip of himself, which was used in a segment of the Jimmy Kimmel Live television show. In relevant part, the plaintiff asserted causes of action alleging violations of California Civil Code § 3344, California's common-law governing appropriation of likeness, and New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, and to recover damages for unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff's contention that the Supreme Court erred in determining that New York law governed this action, not California law, is without merit. New York uses an interest analysis, under which “the law of the jurisdiction having the greatest interest in resolving the particular issue” is given controlling effect (Cooney v. Osgood Mach., 81 N.Y.2d 66, 72; see Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 196–197; Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 521). Pursuant to the interest analysis, “[a] distinction [is made] between laws that regulate primary conduct (such as standards of care) and those that allocate losses after the tort occurs” (Cooney v. Osgood Mach., 81 N.Y.2d at 72; see Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d at 521). If the conflicting laws regulate conduct, the law of the place of the tort “almost invariably obtains” because “that jurisdiction has the greatest interest in regulating behavior within its borders” (Cooney v. Osgood Mach., 81 N.Y.2d at 74, 72). “[W]here the plaintiff and defendant are domiciled in different states, the applicable law in an action where civil remedies are sought for tortious conduct is that of the situs of the injury” (Locke v. Aston, 31 AD3d 33, 38, citing Stoyanovskiy v. Amerada Hess Corp., 286 A.D.2d 727, 728; Restatement [Second] of Conflict of Laws § 153, Comment d).
Applying these principles, the law of New York, where the alleged injury or damage occurred, applies. Although the alleged tortious conduct, the editing of the video clip, occurred in California, the plaintiff's alleged injury occurred in New York, where he is domiciled and resides. Moreover, New York is the state with the greater interest in protecting the plaintiff, its citizen and resident. Accordingly, since this action is governed by New York law, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action, which alleged violation of California Civil Code § 3344, and the second cause of action, which alleged violation of California's common-law governing appropriation of likeness.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined that the third cause of action, which was to recover damages pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 for invasion of the right of privacy, was subject to dismissal for failure to state a cause of action, since the video footage in which the plaintiff's voice, picture, and likeness appeared was not used for advertising or trade purposes (see Kane v. Orange County Publs ., 232 A.D.2d 526, 526–527; Hampton v. Guare, 195 A.D.2d 366, 366). Moreover, the video footage falls within the public interest exception to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 N.Y.2d 436, 441; Freihofer v. Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135, 141; Walter v. NBC Tel. Network, Inc., 27 AD3d 1069, 1070–1071).
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the fifth cause of action, which was to recover damages for unjust enrichment. Common-law unjust enrichment claims for the unauthorized use of an image or likeness are preempted by Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Grodin v. Liberty Cable, 244 A.D.2d 153, 154; Hampton v. Guare, 195 A.D.2d at 366–367).
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 16, 2015
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.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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)