Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard MALDONADO, p/k/a “Richie Ray,” individually and in representation of the conjugal partnership formed by him and his wife Marie De Los Angeles Maldonado, Robert Cruz, p/k/a “Bobby Cruz,” individually and in representation of the conjugal partnership formed by him and his wife Rose Marie Cruz, and Richie Ray & Bobby Cruz Music Publishing Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VALSYN, S.A., an alien corporation, and Sonido, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-4394-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Aug. 13, 2010.
    Steven Blivess, Balber Pickard Maldonado & Van der Tuin, PC, New York, N.Y. (Roger Juan Maldonado, New York, NY; Juan A. Saavedra, San Juan, PR, on the brief), for Appellants.
    Christelle Clement, New York, N.Y., for Appellee Valsyn Inc.
    Mariana D. Negron-Vargas and Carlos A. Garcia-Perez, Goldman Antonetti & Cordova, PSC, San Juan, PR, on submission, for Appellee Sonido Inc.
    Present: ROBERT D. SACK, ROSEMARY S. POOLER and REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants seek review of the September 23, 2009 decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granting appel-lees’ motion for summary judgment on all federal law claims and dismissing the state law claims without prejudice. Appellants are salsa musicians who allege they properly rescinded their recording contracts with appellees in 2004, and that the subsequent exploitation of their works constitutes copyright infringement. The district court found appellants did not have the right to rescind the contracts at issue, and it is that ruling that appellants primarily attack on appeal. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

The district court properly found the equitable remedy of rescission was unavailable to plaintiffs. Under New York law, the “rescission of a contract is an extraordinary remedy.” Nolan v. Sam Fox Publ’g. Co., 499 F.2d 1394, 1397 (2d Cir.1974). Where there is an adequate remedy at law, i.e., money damages, then a party is not entitled to the equitable remedy of rescission. Rudman v. Cowles Commc’ns, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 280 N.E.2d 867 (1972) (rescission “invoked only when there is lacking [a] complete and adequate remedy at law ánd where the status quo may be substantially restored”); see also New Paradigm Software Corp. v. New Era of Networks, Inc., 107 F.Supp.2d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Venegas-Hernandez v. Asociacion de Compositores v. Editores de Musica Latino Americana, 424 F.3d 50, 56-57 (1st Cir.2005) (applying New York law). Here, the record does not support appellant’s argument that they cannot be fully compensated with an award of money damages.

We have examined the remainder of appellants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.