Simeonov v. Tiegs
New York City Civil Court
602 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (1993)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Cheryl Tiegs (defendant), a model, commissioned sculptor Mihail Simeonov (plaintiff) to make an impression of her face with alginate, a quick-drying substance used to create impressions for sculpture making, to prove that the process was safe. Simeonov used the alginate impression of Tiegs’s face to make a plaster sculpture of her head without obtaining Tiegs’s written consent. Simeonov planned to use the plaster sculpture to cast 10 bronze sculptures, worth an estimated $20,000 each. Eventually, Simeonov gave Tiegs the plaster sculpture of her head so she could view it. While the sculpture was at Tiegs’s apartment, it was broken. Simeonov filed a lawsuit against Tiegs in state court, seeking $200,000 in damages—the value of the 10 bronze sculptures that he had planned to create. Tiegs challenged Simeonov’s lawsuit, arguing that Simeonov had violated §§ 50 and 51 of New York’s Civil Rights Law by making the plaster sculpture of Tiegs’s head without her written consent. Those sections provided individuals with a limited statutory right to privacy, prohibiting entities from using a person’s name or likeness for advertising purposes without her written consent. Based on this argument, Tiegs filed a motion in limine to limit the evidence Simeonov could present at trial.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Braun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.