Tobacco Documents Online

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEi7 YOP~{ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:; Plaintiff -against- ~ COiSPLAI"~T LOEWS THEATRES, INC. DEf~~r.3a:it Plaintiff, complaining of the defendant, through its attorneys, GLASS GREENBERG & IR:7I:v, respectfully alleges as follows: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FIRST: Plaintiff ic a New York corporation with offices at 107 East 38th Street, in the City, County and State of New York. SECOND: On information and belief, the defendant is a;:ew York corporation with principal offices at 200 East 42nd Street, in the City, County and State of New York, engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of Kent cigarettes through its Lorillard division. - •c~u{: ~?n^ 1 -.~17()t-,e ;,orillarc, division of the defendant entered in~o an agreement with the plaintiff coruencing June 1, 1970 and terminating .day 31, 1971, under the terms of which the said defendant retained the plaintiff at a monthly retainer of $6,000 per month, pursuant to which the plaintiff was required to create and develop and implement new and different sales promotions for the Lorillard division of thfe defenda:it.

~.. FOURTH: Under the terms of the aforesaid agreement the plaintiff was granted the exclusive right to supply finished art work, camera ready, utilizing plaintiff's art department at hourly rates consistent with industry practices; that all outside purchases would• be provided at plaintiff's cost plus 2510; plaintiff would be given the right to bid competitively with respect to the production of any pro- gram proposed by the plainti=f-during the contract period and if plain- tiff was the low bidder on such production, defendant would be obligated to award such production work to the plaintiff .FIFTH: Commencing on September 15, 1970 and from time to time thereafter, pursuant to the aforesaid agreement plaintiff submitted cer- tain promotional concepts, ideas and visuals to the defendant for its consideration and review, including but not limited to the "Kent Cas41e Sweepstakes", the "Kent Shopping Bag Sweeps" (submitted as the Bag of Groceries promotion), the Kent Steak Knife promotiorn; the Kent Ther:io ,. Coffee iiug promotion and the "Kent Gallery" (submitted as Kent Premium Club). SIXTH: Thereafter the defendant through its Lcrillard divi- sion, accepted plaintiff's sales,pr.omotional concepts, ideas and visuals with respect to the proposals set forth in paragraph FIFTH hereof, and utilized said proposals, concepts, ideas and visuals in marketing the Kent cigarette product. 03'70J452 SEVENTH: The defendant in breach of the terms of its agree- ment, wilfully failed a,nd refused to permit plaintiff to supaly the finished art~work, camera ready, and outside purchases in connection with the "Kent Shopping Bag Sweeps" promotion, the Kent Steak Knife -2-

L , promotion and the "Kent Gallery." Defendant in breach of its agreement with the plaintiff, wilfully refused and failed to permit plaintiff to bid on the production work in connection with the sales promotions utilized by said defendant in marketing its Kent cigarette product. EIGHTH: Plaintiff has duly demanded of defendant compensa- tion in accordance with the terms of its agreement with plaintiff, which NINTH: Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $235,000, none of which has been paid by the defendant. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION TEi;TH: Plaintiff repeates and realleges each and every alle- gation contained in paragraphs FIRST through NINTH as though fully set forth herein at length. ELEVENTH: On or about September 8, 1970 pursuant to its agreement with defendant, plaintiff submitted to the defendant a sales promotional concept entitled "Kent Castle Contest", which promotion included an agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff a fee of 25% of any payments made to the Blue Ribbon Division of Good Luck Glove Co. ~ TWELFTH: The defendant required the Blue Ribbon Division of Good Luck Glove Co. to rejudge the Kent Castle contest at a fee of approximately $100,000. THIRTIEE_.TH: Pursuant to its agreement with the defenda::t, plaintiff is entitled to a fee of 25% of the $100,000 judging fee or -0 $25,000, payment for which sum, although duly demanded, has been refused. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows: -3- 11* 4M!*M G.r

a . r ! ... 1. The sum of $235,000 together'with interest thereon as provided by law; 2. The sum of $25,000 together with interest as provided by law; I. The costs and disbursements of this action, together with such other and further relief as to the Court may see:n just and proper. f GLASS GREENBERG & IRWIN Attorneys 'for Plaintiff Office & P. 0. Address 540 Madison Avenue New York,New York 10022 838-6670 .. r