Katz v. Siroty, 58 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Katz v. Siroty, 58 A.D.2d 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brinkley v. Casablancas (nyappdiv, 1981-05-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brinkley v. Casablancas
N.Y. App. Div. · 1981 · confidence medium
(See, also, Lombardo v Doyle, Dane & Bernbach, 58 AD2d 620, 621.) Although the state of the law in the right of privacy area “is still that of a haystack in a hurricane” (Ettore v Philco Tel.
discussed Cited "see" Jackie Collins Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co., Inc. (2×)
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lombardo v. Doyle, Dane and Bernbach, Inc., 58 A.D.2d 620, 621 , 396 N.Y.S.2d 661 (2d Dep't 1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dukas v. D. H. Sawyer & Associates, Ltd.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
A violation of the right of publicity involves misappropriation of a person’s proprietary interest in his or her identity for commercial exploitation (Brinkley v Casablancas, 80 AD2d 428 ; see also, Lombardo v Doyle, Dane & Bernbach, 58 AD2d 620 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Lombardo v. Doyle, Dane & Bernbach, 58 A.D.2d 620 , 396 N.Y.S.2d 661 (2d Dep’t 1977).
Jacques J. Katz
v.
Carl M. Siroty
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 20, 1977.
58 A.D.2d 620
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover the value of legal services rendered, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 10, 1976, which denied his motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Westchester County. Action remitted to Special Term to hear and report on the question of plaintiff’s residence and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. In our opinion the question of whether plaintiff-respondent has a bona fide residence in Kings County, in addition to his unquestioned residence in' Westchester County, is a factual one which cannot be resolved on the papers submitted on this motion. The statement by plaintiff that "I also maintain a residence at 941 East 23rd Street in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York and have so maintained such residence without interruption for upwards of thirty years”, etc., is conclusory and self-serving. Whether plaintiff stays at the Kings County address for some length of time and has the bona fide intent to retain the place as a residence with some degree of permanence, or merely uses it as a stopover for convenience, are some of the questions which are unanswered herein (cf. Hammerman v Louis Watch Co., 7 AD2d 817, 818; Fromkin v Loehmann’s Hewlett, 16 Mise 2d 117, 118). Accordingly, the action is remitted to Special Term for a hearing, at which, testimony and other evidence may be adduced on plaintiff’s claim that he has a second residence in Kings County (see Fromkin v Loehmann’s Hewlett, supra). Hopkins, J. P., Margett, Shapiro and Suozzi, JJ., concur.