Opinion
June 13, 1950.
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.
Plaintiff, as was said at Special Term, had no connection with dope peddling, which is the subject of defendant's article, and is not a public figure in the field in question (cf. Gavrilov v. Duell, Sloan Pearce, 276 App. Div. 826); therefore, the publication of her photograph was related neither to the reporting of news, nor to the exposition of a subject of general interest or educational value. It falls within none of the exceptions to the coverage of sections 50 Civ. Rights and 51 Civ. Rights of the Civil Rights Law, such as are enumerated in Lahiri v. Daily Mirror ( 162 Misc. 776), and, therefore, as the decision by Special Term states, plaintiff's photograph may be found to have been published (although, perhaps, by mistake) merely to increase the circulation of the magazine, which is to say, for purposes of advertising or trade. We are not called upon now to decide whether such a determination should be made as a question of law or may be made as a question of fact, inasmuch as the appeal is from an order denying defendant's motion for judgment dismissing the amended complaint for insufficiency.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $20 costs and printing disbursements.
Peck, P.J., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.
Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. [ 197 Misc. 921.]