Lapine v. Seinfeld
31 Misc. 3d 736
N.Y. Sup. Ct.2011Background
- Lapine sues Seinfeld for slander and HarperCollins for breach of implied contract and misappropriation/unfair competition regarding The Sneaky Chef and Deceptively Delicious.
- Second federal suit previously held the books were not substantially similar for copyright purposes, supporting that there was no copyright claim between the parties.
- Lapine alleges HarperCollins solicited and rejected her book proposal in 2006, then published Deceptively Delicious in 2007 with similarities to The Sneaky Chef.
- HarperCollins moves to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), arguing lack of contract formation, lack of novelty, and preemption by copyright law.
- Court analyzes implied-in-fact contract, misappropriation, and the novelty and preemption issues, and determines the complaint fails to plead a contract or misappropriation with requisite specificity or novelty.
- Defamation claim against Seinfeld is dismissed as the statements were opinions within a comedic context and not reasonably understood as factual assertions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HarperCollins can be liable for breach of implied contract | Lapine asserts implied contract from conduct after submitting proposals. | HarperCollins lacked assent, price terms, and identifiable industry custom to support implied contract. | No valid implied-in-fact contract pleaded; dismissed. |
| Whether Lapine states a misappropriation/unfair competition claim | Idea for hiding healthy foods was misappropriated by HarperCollins. | Idea lacked novelty and no legally cognizable relationship existed. | Misappropriation claim dismissed for lack of novelty and absence of contractual/fiduciary relation. |
| Whether state claims are preempted by the Copyright Act | Implied contract and misappropriation claims survive preemption as novel promises not to copy. | Most claims are preempted as they seek rights equivalent to copyright protections. | Misappropriation is preempted; novelty analyses do not save implied contract claim; preemption heavily influences the outcome. |
| Whether Seinfeld's defaming statements are actionable | Seinfeld conveyed false and defamatory messages about Lapine’s plagiarism allegations. | Statements were opinions within a comedic format and not actionable facts. | Statements were protected opinions; defamation claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986) (opinion vs. fact; context matters for defamation})
- Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977) (fact vs. opinion; test for actionable statements)
- Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993) (context and overall meaning of statements)
- Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Henry & Warren Corp., 74 N.Y.2d 475 (N.Y. Ct. Apps. 1989) (contract terms must be reasonably certain)
- Marraccini v. Bertelsmann Music Group, 221 A.D.2d 95 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) (novelty concept in misappropriation analysis)
- Paul v. Haley, 183 A.D.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) (stringent test for novelty/originality of ideas)