New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51 (2026)

Action for injunction and for damages

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 51. Action for injunction and for damages. Any person whose name,
portrait, picture, likeness or voice is used within this state for
advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written
consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable
action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or
corporation so using such person's name, portrait, picture, likeness or
voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and
recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use and if
the defendant shall have knowingly used such person's name, portrait,
picture, likeness or voice in such manner as is forbidden or declared to
be unlawful by section fifty of this article, the jury, in its
discretion, may award exemplary damages. But nothing contained in this
article shall be so construed as to prevent any person, firm or
corporation from selling or otherwise transferring any material
containing such name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice in whatever
medium to any user of such name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice,
or to any third party for sale or transfer directly or indirectly to
such a user, for use in a manner lawful under this article; nothing
contained in this article shall be so construed as to prevent any
person, firm or corporation, practicing the profession of photography,
from exhibiting in or about their establishment specimens of the work of
such establishment, unless the same is continued by such person, firm or
corporation after written notice objecting thereto has been given by the
person portrayed; and nothing contained in this article shall be so
construed as to prevent any person, firm or corporation from using the
name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice of any manufacturer or dealer
in connection with the goods, wares and merchandise manufactured,
produced or dealt in by such manufacturer or dealer which they have sold
or disposed of with such name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice used
in connection therewith; or from using the name, portrait, picture,
likeness or voice of any author, composer or artist in connection with
their literary, musical or artistic productions which they have sold or
disposed of with such name, portrait, picture, likeness or voice used in
connection therewith. Nothing contained in this section shall be
construed to prohibit the copyright owner of a sound recording from
disposing of, dealing in, licensing or selling that sound recording to
any party, if the right to dispose of, deal in, license or sell such
sound recording has been conferred by contract or other written document
by such living person or the holder of such right. Nothing contained in
the foregoing sentence shall be deemed to abrogate or otherwise limit
any rights or remedies otherwise conferred by federal law or state law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 91 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 97 N.E.3d 389 (2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 97 N.E.3d 389 (2018). · cites it 7× “Civil Rights Law § 51, as amended in 1921 (L 1921, ch 501, § 1), "adds the civil damages teeth" ( Messenger, 94 N.”

Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publ'g, 727 N.E.2d 549 (NY 2000). · cites it 8× “This Court upheld a jury verdict granting plaintiff an injunction and damages pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 51, stating that although an unauthorized, truthful biography of plaintiff would be newsworthy, the protection of the newsworthiness doctrine did not extend to this…”

Beverley v. Choices Women's Med. Ctr., Inc., 587 N.E.2d 275 (NY 1991). · cites it 8× “We agree with the lower courts that plaintiffs photo, name and professional title were used for "advertising purposes” within the meaning of Civil Rights Law § 51 as a matter of law.”

Molina v. Phoenix Sound Inc., 297 A.D.2d 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). · cites it 6× “These two sections create a cause of action in favor of “[a]ny person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without * * * written consent” (Civil Rights Law § 51; see also Cohen v Herbal Concepts,…”

Beverley v. Choices Women's Med. Ctr., Inc., 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1159 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 14× “The primary question to be decided on this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment as to liability with respect to the first cause of action in the complaint, which alleges a violation of Civil Rights Law § 51. This question must be answered in…”

Astrud Oliveira, Also Known as Astrud Gilberto v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Pepsico, Inc., Bbdo Worldwide, Inc., & Omnicom Grp., Inc., 251 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “Gilberto then moved for reconsideration of the portions of the June 13, 1997, order dismissing her unfair competition claim and her claim under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51 . The district court denied the motion as to the unfair competition claim without leave to replead.”

Ryan v. Volpone Stamp Co., Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). · cites it 4× “” N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51 (McKinney 2000).”

Simeonov v. Tiegs, 159 Misc. 2d 54 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1993). · cites it 9× “” Civil Rights Law § 51 provides in part: "Any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade *57 without the written consent first obtained as above provided [in Civil Rights Law § 50] may maintain an…”

Sirico v. F.G.G. Prods., Inc., 71 A.D.3d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 2× “Finally, Davidson asserts a claim of violation of Civil Rights Law § 51. Defendant’s answer counterclaimed against Sirico for costs arising from Davidson’s claims, on the ground that Davidson performed at Sirico’s behest.”

Bement v. N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc., 66 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1795 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · cites it 3× “Thus the question becomes whether the article is an advertisement in disguise or whether its use of plaintiffs image and name bears any real relationship to the article.”

Stern v. Delphi Internet Servs. Corp., 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1789 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). · cites it 5× “, 15 AD2d 343 [1st Dept], affd 11 NY2d 907 [1962] [privileged or incidental advertising use by a news disseminator of a person’s name or identity does not violate Civil Rights Law § 51]; Velez v VV Publ. Corp.”

Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “, by failing to pay Belliard and Fell for work performed during their employment at Pure Power; (2) Plaintiffs violated the SCA, and that they are entitled to punitive damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees under the SCA; and (3) Plaintiffs violated New York’s Civil Rights Law §…”

Show all 91 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.