From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maurizio v. Rendal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 1995
222 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 14, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).


Since plaintiff is claiming to be a co-author of the work at issue, regardless of how the language in the complaint is couched, the complaint is preempted by Federal Copyright Act ( 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) and was properly dismissed ( see, Lieberman v Estate of Chayefsky, 535 F. Supp. 90). The Federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over such claims ( 28 U.S.C. § 1338 [a]).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Maurizio v. Rendal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 14, 1995
222 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Maurizio v. Rendal

Case Details

Full title:CYNTHIA MAURIZIO, Appellant, v. JUSTINE RENDAL, Respondent

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

Date published: Dec 14, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 281 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 33

Citing Cases

Magic Circle Films Int'l, v. Entm't One U.S.

Although plaintiff contends that the amended complaint should not have been dismissed because "[a]ctions…

Magic Circle Films Int'l, v. Entm't One U.S.

Although plaintiff contends that the amended complaint should not have been dismissed because "[a]ctions…