§Why CasetextPricing

Karen Gravano, Appellant,v.Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Brief

32 Cited authorities

  1. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

    564 U.S. 786 (2011)   Cited 487 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even if violent video games cause aggression, a state could not prohibit their sale to children

  2. 511 West 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co.

    98 N.Y.2d 144 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 2,077 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by alleging that the defendant, which contracted to convert its building into a cooperative, rejected bona fide purchase offers from prospective tenants

  3. Brown v. Board of Education

    347 U.S. 483 (1954)   Cited 2,646 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place"

  4. Fontanetta v. John Doe

    73 A.D.3d 78 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 967 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that corporate documents and redacted reports are not documentary evidence for purposes of CPRL 3211

  5. Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer

    8 N.Y.3d 318 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 547 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render any portion of it meaningless

  6. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.

    433 U.S. 562 (1977)   Cited 346 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding a state may privilege the press by exempting it from a right-of-publicity tort

  7. Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York

    435 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 229 times
    Holding NYC's vendor licensing regime survives intermediate scrutiny because it "in no way precludes plaintiffs from reaching public audiences on the sidewalks generally, or in any of the specific venues where they currently hawk their wares" but rather "[a]t most . . . prohibits plaintiffs, as unlicensed vendors, from personally selling their wares for a profit and at a venue of their choosing"

  8. Rogers v. Grimaldi

    875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)   Cited 370 times   108 Legal Analyses
    Holding that title of movie "Ginger and Fred" contained "expressive element" implicating First Amendment

  9. Plessy v. Ferguson

    163 U.S. 537 (1896)   Cited 696 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause for a state law to segregate white and colored people in public facilities provided "equal" alternatives were provided for each race

  10. Crepin v. Fogarty

    59 A.D.3d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 71 times
    In Crepin v Fogarty (59 AD3d 837, 839), the Appellate Division, Third Department, found that a deed qualified as "documentary evidence" where it conclusively established the validity of the disputed easement.

  11. Section R3211 - Motion to dismiss

    N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3211   Cited 37,992 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting dismissal where a defense is based upon documentary evidence

  12. Section 3026 - Construction

    N.Y. CPLR 3026   Cited 1,499 times
    Permitting defects in pleadings to be ignored if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced

  13. Section 5602 - Appeals to the court of appeals by permission

    N.Y. CPLR 5602   Cited 1,154 times
    Discussing appeals by permission to New York Court of Appeals

  14. Section 51 - Action for injunction and for damages

    N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 51   Cited 552 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Affording cause of action for commercial use of name or picture without prior written consent

  15. Section 50 - Right of privacy

    N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50   Cited 519 times   8 Legal Analyses

    A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor. N.Y. Civ. RightsLaw § 50

  16. Section 5611 - When appellate division order deemed final

    N.Y. CPLR 5611   Cited 72 times

    If the appellate division disposes of all the issues in the action its order shall be considered a final one, and a subsequent appeal may be taken only from that order and not from any judgment or order entered pursuant to it. If the aggrieved party is granted leave to replead or to perform some other act which would defeat the finality of the order, it shall not take effect as a final order until the expiration of the time limited for such act without his having performed it. N.Y. CPLR 5611