From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strelsin v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 11, 1971
36 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Summary

holding that the court did not have jurisdiction over a California defendant who allegedly libeled the plaintiff during a television broadcast recorded in California because the mere subsequent distribution of the tape in New York did "not constitute doing business in New York by the newscaster who performed elsewhere."

Summary of this case from Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia

Opinion

May 11, 1971


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 17, 1970, denying moving defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously reversed on the law, the motion granted, the complaint dismissed and the action severed as to defendant Rona Barrett. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The action is to recover damages for an alleged libel stated to have been published in a television broadcast. The moving defendant is the person alleged to have made the defamatory statement. Service was made in California, purportedly in accord with CPLR 302. Obviously the service cannot be sustained pursuant to paragraph 2 of subdivision (a) of the section (commission of a tortious act within the State), as a cause of action for defamation is specifically excluded. Special Term relied upon paragraph 1 of subdivision (a) "transacts any business within the state". It appears that the moving defendant gives regular performances which consist of a monologue of gossip column character. These performances are given at a studio in Los Angeles and are recorded on video tape by Metromedia, Inc. This concludes the moving defendant's participation. The tapes are distributed by Metromedia to television stations throughout the country as it sees fit and the moving defendant has no part in or control over the distribution. The fact that Metromedia distributed the tape in New York does not constitute doing business in New York by the newscaster who performed elsewhere. There is no transaction attributable to her which occurred here ( Ferrante Equip. Co. v. Lasker-Goldman Corp., 26 N.Y.2d 280).

Concur — Markewich, J.P., Nunez, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.


Summaries of

Strelsin v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 11, 1971
36 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

holding that the court did not have jurisdiction over a California defendant who allegedly libeled the plaintiff during a television broadcast recorded in California because the mere subsequent distribution of the tape in New York did "not constitute doing business in New York by the newscaster who performed elsewhere."

Summary of this case from Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia
Case details for

Strelsin v. Barrett

Case Details

Full title:ALFRED STRELSIN, Respondent, v. RONA BARRETT, Appellant, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: May 11, 1971

Citations

36 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

Yanni v. Variety, Inc.

There is grave doubt that appellant was even aware of any New York distribution. We do not find on this…

Goldfarb v. Channel One Russia

In other words, "when the defamatory publication itself constitutes the alleged ‘transact[ion of] business’…