Legal Opinion
Caesar v. Chemical Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 17, 1985PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by granting defendant’s motion for permission to proceed with pretrial disclosure and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, with costs. The certified question is answered in the negative.
Neither oral nor implied consent is a complete defense to a privacy action under Civil Rights Law § 51 (Lomax v New Broadcasting Co., 18 AD2d 229). Written consent is explicitly *701required by the statute and any change in that unambiguous requirement must come from the Legislature (see, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Lomax v. New Broadcasting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
3Cited by11 opinions
- City of New York v. MaulNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
- Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1986
- Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.