From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Oct 11, 1962
37 Misc. 2d 172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)

Summary

holding that the New York antitrust statute did not apply to the plaintiffs case because the only adverse effects occurred in New Jersey

Summary of this case from Océ Printing Systems USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Services, Inc.

Opinion

October 11, 1962

Donovan, Leisure Newton Irvine ( A. Vernon Carnahan and James M. Ellis of counsel), for Buena Vista Distribution Co., Inc., defendant.

David H. Isacson for plaintiff.


Defendant Buena Vista Distribution Company, Inc., moves for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice. In the first cause of action plaintiff alleges claimed interference by the defendant Walter Reade Theatres, Inc., with plaintiff's business opportunities with Buena Vista. No such cause of action lies against the moving defendant. The second cause of action is based on the "Donnelly Act," section 340 Gen. Bus. of the General Business Law. The alleged grievance relates to the attempt to monopolize the business of motion picture distribution and display in an area in New Jersey in favor of the defendant Walter Reade Theatres, Inc., and against the plaintiff. Free competition in the business, trade or commerce or the furnishing of any service in this State is the emphasis and objective of the statute and not contracts having their impact outside the State. As stated in Leader Theatre Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp. ( 186 Misc. 280, 283, affd. 273 App. Div. 844): "It is now well established that States, under their police power, can enact and implement legislation which affects interstate commerce, when such commerce has significant local consequences." The sale of rights here is of no overriding concern to the State since the significant local consequences occur in another State. ( Loew's v. Radio Hawaii, 20 Misc.2d 587.) The plaintiff's contention that the local consequences occurring in New Jersey are a "slight exception" in relation to the alleged fact that the conspiracy otherwise was consummated here, is erroneous and disregards the basic objective of the statute to regulate the local consequences so as to encourage free competition in this State in relation to intrastate business.

The motion is granted dismissing the complaint as to the moving defendant.


Summaries of

Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Oct 11, 1962
37 Misc. 2d 172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)

holding that the New York antitrust statute did not apply to the plaintiffs case because the only adverse effects occurred in New Jersey

Summary of this case from Océ Printing Systems USA, Inc. v. Mailers Data Services, Inc.

In Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc., 37 Misc.2d 172, 237 N.Y.S.2d 795 (Sup.Ct. 1962), the court refused to apply the Donnelly Act to defendant's alleged interference with plaintiff's business opportunities.

Summary of this case from Bowlus v. Alexander Alexander Services, Inc.

dismissing Donnelly Act claim because alleged wrongful contract had impact outside New York

Summary of this case from Intern. Tel. Prod. v. Twentieth Century-Fox
Case details for

Baker v. Walter Reade Theatres, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL BAKER, Plaintiff, v. WALTER READE THEATRES, INC., et al., Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Oct 11, 1962

Citations

37 Misc. 2d 172 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)
237 N.Y.S.2d 795

Citing Cases

Partee v. San Diego Chargers Football Co.

The question, then, is whether the interstate activity has the requisite impact upon intrastate commerce to…

Bowlus v. Alexander Alexander Services, Inc.

The language of the statute itself limits its application to conduct within the state. In Baker v. Walter…