Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
TufAmerica, Inc. v. EMI Unart Catalog, Inc.
Citations: 2017 NY Slip Op 7776; 155 A.D.3d 434; 63 N.Y.S.3d 236Docket: 4898 651197/11
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 8, 2017; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
TufAmerica, Inc. filed a lawsuit against EMI Unart Catalog, Inc. regarding ownership rights to certain songs by George Patterson. The New York Appellate Division affirmed a lower court's order denying EMI Unart's motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint concerning five of the seven songs in question. The court found that EMI Unart failed to establish that TufAmerica did not own the exclusive administration rights to the songs. Specifically, the court noted that it was not TufAmerica's responsibility to prove ownership during EMI Unart's motion. EMI Unart did not demonstrate the invalidity of a 2001 agreement in which Patterson allegedly transferred rights to TufAmerica or the validity of a 1973 agreement that purportedly transferred rights from Patterson to Kama Sutra Music Inc., the predecessor of EMI Unart. The court highlighted that EMI Unart failed to show a clear chain of title from Kama Sutra to itself regarding the rights conveyed through the 1973 agreement. EMI Unart argued that its chain of title was irrelevant, asserting that rights conveyed to Kama Sutra in 1973 could not have been transferred to TufAmerica in 2001. However, the court determined that EMI Unart did not prove that those rights were held by any entity other than itself in 2001, nor did it establish possession of those rights at present. The decision concluded with the court rejecting EMI Unart's other arguments as unpersuasive. Costs were awarded to TufAmerica.