Tobacco Documents Online

Pre-Argument Statement 6 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NES7 YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x ROBERT BRIAN ASSOCIATES, INC., . Index No. 6859/77 Plaintiff, -against- . PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT LOEWS THEATRES, INC., • Defendant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x Case Title: Appeal from Court: County: As above Supreme Court of the State of New York New York County Date of Judgment: July 20, 1978 Index No.: 6859/77 Judge: Date Notice of Hon. Alvin F. Klein ~ Appeal Filed: 1978 Name of Counsel for Appellant: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton 6 Garrison Address: Telephone: 345 Park Avenue; New York, N.Y. 10022 (212) 644-8000 Name of Counsel for Respondent: Address: Leonard R. Glass Suite 3600 ~ 540 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 W ~ Telephone: (212) 751-1244 N ~ I Method of Disposition in Trial Court: Judgment After Trial: Judgment after trial For plaintiff A&. C.J w

Pre-Argument Statement 2 Court Trial: No, Jury trial Damages Granted: $100,000, plus interest in the amount of $27,276.50. Brief Descriptions of Nature of Case and Result Below: Plaintiff is a sales promotion agency which entered into an oral retainer agreement with the Lorillard Division of defendant Loews Theatres, Inc. on or about June 1, 1970 to present new and different sales promotion ideas to Lorillard. Plaintiff claimed a con- tractual right to execute or compete for the privilege of executing actual production (including preparation of finished art work) of such new and dif- ferent sales promotion ideas as were accepted by Lorillard. Plaintiff com- plained that four of its ideas were used by Lorillard, but that plaintiff was not permitted to produce or compete for the right to produce such promotions. Plain- tiff -sought to recover the profits it would have earned had it produced those four promotions. Lorillard contended that under the re- tainer agreement, it had no duty to al-' low plaintiff to produce any of its sales promotions, and that, in any event, none of the four promotions involved here were initiated by plaintiff, nor were they derived from any suggestions of plaintiff. As a second cause of action, plaintiff contended that in connection with an un- related contest promotion which it did produce for Lorillard, with respect to which it had received 25% of the fee paid to an outside acency to judge the contest, it should also have received 25% of the fees paid to the same judg- ing agency when, years later, it became necessary to rejudge that contest. 0 Lorillard contended that it had no duty to pay anything to plaintiff relating to ~ ~ ~ C.. !

Pre-Argua,ent Statement LEONARD R. GLASS, ESQ. Suite 3600 540 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y. 10022 4 9 I