and come only christina holiday and sandra williams there are two issues on the subpoena one pertaining to miss kamali and one to williams and one pertaining to miss holladay the district court erred on both issues by improperly usurping the role of the a genuine issue of disputed fact as to whether mr comolli and miss williams gave their written consent to huntington to broadcast the commercial in which they appear in perpetuity section fifty one of new york civil rights law provides an absolute right to injunctive relief as well as damages when someone's likeness is used for advertising or trade purposes we have the same document that appears on eight to thirty one but ms williams had written her name in curs script with there be an issue of fact on this record as to whether there was a written release well the issue here your honor is not whether it's written in script or not because new york law is clear that any mark can constitute a signature even if she signed it in the script you would say there's an issue of fact if she had signed it in script here we probably would not claim that there was an issue of fact so then what is the difference given that as you just said that's not the issue because new york state law says something in print can be a signature as well as a other thing that somebody adopts a signature judgment which clear under new york law is that the intent of the person making the mark is what's most important even if she signed it in cursive script you would have the same argument she would come in and say i didn't mean to give my permission we would not and that's not what happened here you're a light why not i'm trying to understand either the different the critical fact is it's not in cruise's script right under very truly yours correct your honor and that usually mean well there's and there's first of all you signed something and you're very truly yours what does that mean what are you doing in a letter that would be that's typically where a signature goes there's an element of common sense here that people expect when they sign a document you know or execute a document that there will be a signature line on which they placed their actual signature for instance if i went to the bank and filled out a loan application i can print my name address and phone number on it but if i don't sign it on the signature line the bank's going to return it to me and asked me my name on the signature line if i if you print your name on the signature line then and you intend that to be your signature then then the view that would be acceptable to give it back to the bank in the bank except that as a loan application asking that i would have an issue of fact that i never really applied for the long because i didn't sign and i'm not suggesting that judge lanch and i'm still having trouble understanding why if we have a document that is quite clear as it's the kind of release that actors sign when they want when the advertising agency or whoever is trying to comply with the law and you write your name in print in to be objective evidence in the record and there is here there are thirty one releases that huntington produced in which that arkham properly executed those are on a let's see those are a one ninety six to two twenty six and those thirty one releases including a recent release from miss holladay the actors printed their name address and phone number and they signed on the signature line at the bottom that's why miss holladay is not claiming here that that's why her claim is different from williams at this point so when you look at the two there's a clear difference between the two here you also have you have miss kamali and miss williams testimony that they have never signed a document by printing their name address and phone number that this is not their signature and that they have never seen or heard of a release that did not require an actor to sign the release on a signature line at the bottom and i'm going to do to stories to what they i writing their names here their testimony is that they don't remember seeing this release but what miss miss williams testified they all testified that the set was chaotic that day that they were being rushed to get on to set in and the hair and make up and what miss williams surmised is someone put some paperwork in front of them and said you know please feel fill out this paperwork with your name and contact information and you can you know read it and sign it and revisit it it's all conjecture afterwards twenty one i'm only the parent or guardian signed the sing intro on that is what huntington contends and the signature line if you read under it says if signatories under twenty one the parent or guardian must also sign above to signify agreement doesn't that undermine your interpretation your honor we can see that this language is them big us but plaintiffs maintain that a reasonable interpretation of this language is that the parent or guardian has to sign on the dition to or all these parents and guardian error by not having the minors sign the this is the signature line well no because under the law what matters is that the parent or guardian alternately signs we can say we contend that this language indicates that it's a very important that the parent or guardian in fact essential that they sign this document but this language doesn't indicate that the adult actors don't have to sign and in fact again there are thirty one releases provided by huntington that do have adult actors signing on the line including this holiday including andy's do for whom we provide an affidavit was an adult at the time including in julian who huntington's thirty b six witness conceded was an adult and signed on this line furthermore there's evidence checks as compensation yes your honor the law is clear that participation in the commercial including the law of the circuit is clear that making a recording does not equal giving consent to release that recording publicly and  period and the plaintiffs all contend that they believed that the usage would be for short term because of the amount that they were paid here and that the five hundred dollars question if they thought they didn't read this and so they thought it was a release for a limited purpose doesn't that mean they still know it's a release where they're still signing it as a release in other words i understand and i indeed had a trial once based on a case where summary judgment was awarded for the plaintiffs of people who appeared in a commercial knew they were appearing in a commercial and did not sign anything because you need to have a written release but here they knew they were going to be in a commercial this was not a casual sort of event there was paperwork given to them i'm just puzzled as to what they could possibly have thought they were doing and it sounds to me like you just said they thought they were signing a release for a limited release of the commercial not for in perpetuity your honor on a set it's typically my experience that actors are not concerned as much with the paperwork as they are their performances and undisputed in this case that the set was chaotic that morning and the the plaintiffs are being rushed around to hair and makeup and to get to set and to perform their roles they don't remember seeing or signing any paperwork but they  they do contend that they never would have signed a perpetual release in fact miss williams would have signed a perpetual release says if only i had read this document and i would have refused to sign that doesn't say i signed release that allowed huntington to use the commercial for this period of time at all they didn't remember whether they had signed a release is the truth of it i didn't remember when they signed a release is there any testimony about their seen or heard of a release that doesn't have a signature line at the bottom that requires a signature but this was a nonunion commercial and they have typical experience with nonunion commercials of this type and they issue is that they did not have an intention by printing their name address and phone number to sign the release is personal release at the top correct your honor it says personal release at the top it's possible that this was put in front of them along with other paperwork and the the p a on the set the production assistant said you know we need to get you into hair and make up into your thing can you just fill out the information with your name and contact information and then afterwards you know we'll deal with the signing and the reading and all of that and then they just never got around to that that's possible and the point here is that there is objective evidence in the record including huntington's thirty b six witnesses own testimony that a fully executed release she agreed with this included it please the court king poor for the huntington defendants we've now heard two important concessions are admissions from counsel for the plaintiffs one that if ms williams under new york law the signature does not have to be and person it may be a market may be it may be printed so what we're left with here is simply allegations that even though they admit that this is their printed name on the release that it's not their subjective intent that they be bound by it quite a lot in section forty six of the general construction law and that section makes clear that a printed name can constitute a signature but only if the printing is made and hears the language with intent to execute the relevant writing isn't the relevant question as to the palance suggest whether the plaintiffs intended to execute the country because under new york law is everywhere the the signing of a release of a release or any contract with a valid signature and i think we're at the point now that there's there's no question that this is a valid signature if it's a valid signature that it is presumed to be conclusively binding unless there is some other reason that is there or there was fraud or there was the rest or there was which is never been alleged here and all we have are a litany of excuses which the law has always found are not sufficient to overcome that presumption of being bound such as we don't remember reading the contract that's never that's never been a reason we we were hurried on the day of the shoot that's never been a reason to say that you're not bound by a contract because you didn't read it read it more thoroughly or that if that's subjective so much as a trade usage this is the way it works in this industry you sign up for a limited period although the release doesn't talk about limited periods that they would never have signed up permission is given in perpetuity throughout the world now that does there's no limitation it also states there's no other expectation of compensation that's is clear as it can be now you're saying there is a difference between intending to sign a release and intending to sign to agree to the terms that are written in the release right in other words if you actually sign a contract without reading it then you're kind of stuck where this is in a contract by the way this is just a new york law of permission it can be unilateral it doesn't require consideration it's that or etc so if you signed it without reading it you're it seems to me you are kind of stuck but most of the time the appellant seems to be arguing that there was no intent to sign this at all there was just an intention to give their contact information  and in that and therefore the printed name is not intended to serve as a signature of any response to that or what is your response is to that your honor i mean we've already got  admission that had they signed it in cursive then that that's their admission that had they signed it in person that would have been permission looks like this commode did so and she signed it something you might call kind of quasi i curse of and miss holladay did science so we're back to the argument that you know had we only signed it in cursive that would have been valid permission and that brings us back to the section forty six again again that it doesn't have to be in because be printed it can be any mark so we keep coming back to that and if they've admitted that had it only been in cursive we wouldn't be here then it stands to reason that we only need to go back to section forty six and so what we're left with again is a plan to say we met this is our handwriting these are valid signatures and after the fact we're claiming that it wasn't our intent because either a we don't remember or b we were hurried or there were other people who signed these on behalf of children in cursive or there is a a corporate representative who says that  the the signature is complete none of that so so the signature line states that the parents were got guardian must also also sign not that only a not at all your honor because that that signature line of the bottom states expressly if the signatory and here again there's the word that this contemplates a signature the the fact that someone who signed it on a on behalf of a child actor or someone may have thought well maybe i'll just sign it here that doesn't undercut the idea that when you sign this release either in terms cursive semi cursive or printing you are still showing your assent and that's what this is all about is about a sentence of up to is there any indication that you intended you gave object of evidence and there is no more basic object of evidence of a cent than a signature contract law is built on that basic idea that parties cannot sign contracts and then years later say you know what even though it's i did sign it or i did print my name there you know it i really didn't mean to give consent because i don't remember it or i was too hurried or other people may have signed it in a different way or the releases were in the in some other location for a long time all these none of them add up to anything that would be object of evidence and that's the essence of what the district court found here is that when you add all this up it's all one after another subjective allegation as to what their subjective intent is in contract law or even assent cannot really continue is we know it if all of these if the idea behind a written signature whether it's printed or a marker whatever doesn't mean anything because the the signatory can come back at some later date and say i really didn't intend this to be my consent so for those reasons we ask that the the district court's opinion and its ruling be affirmed unless the court has any further questions thank your honors the problem with huntington's argument here as you pointed out in your questioning is that they don't have an answer here to objective evidence on intent and all of the objective evidence in the record supports williams argument that they didn't intend to sign it by printing their names and filling out their information to speak to judge pullers question about industry standards there's also appellants experts testimony which is unreported in un con it's an industry standard to have an actor sign a release on a signature line and that's one contradicted by huntington point in this case is not in the appendix and i don't think would i be correct in speculating that the complaint said there were no releases the complaint said that plaintiffs did not remember signing any releases but that they would not have signed and listened to them for a long time there were no releases and the case was litigated on that basis until the releases were discovered correct your honor and that happened in two parts first huntington discovered thirty one releases all the signatures on the signature line and they turn those over then because they still hadn't found releases from miss camilla and miss williams they went back to the production company involved and said please search urgently and the production company came back with the releases without signatures on the signature line which might be which might be  very problematic except that everyone acknowledges that these are in fact not concocted after the fact but are in fact the handwriting the point is so all i'm getting at is this whole argument is really not how the case started out right it's now we're still trying to save the case even though they did in fact execute these releases no your honor the plaintiffs actually send e mails which are in the record saying we don't believe we signed anything in two thousand and fourteen before that whoever kept these releases knew that there was a qualitative difference between the two because they didn't produce them all at the same time you're saying you're inferring that they actually knew they had releases but they were worried about them so they would rather have litigated the case without the releases them no your honor really without them and that shows that they didn't think these were real releases no your honor we're saying that the person who kept these releases the production assistant kept them in separate piles and boxes because the production assistant realized at the time  probably screwed this up i didn't get signatures on these releases and that's why initially the production assistant did not turn over those releases when huntington first asked and would help them but there are three cases under new york law your honor that we cite which are very here that huntington has no response to in their opposition those are just far you versus while the finley galleries in the southern district of new york there the court denied summary judgment because there was a document that bill of sale that was in the defendant's handwriting and the defendant had initialed the price of the document and the court denied summary judgment saying there was a question of fact as to whether or not there was an intent for the defendant to sign off in that case on the agreement there was also s t protection inc versus del rio in the eastern district of new york where an employer e mailed an employment agreement to the employee the employee never signed on the signature line at the bottom but sent back an e mail saying your offer accepted and the court there found there was an issue of fact that necessitated denying summary judgment and said explicitly that unsigned signature line at the bottom was enough evidence to create such a tri issue of fact and then finally there's molina versus phoenix sound from the first department in two thousand and two involving a model release in which the defendant offered evidence that the model head there was that the model had been paid two hundred dollars t stub had been made out saying two hundred dollars for your services here that the model had signed this with her signature and the court found there was an issue of fact that precluded summary judgment because it was for the jury to decide whether or not that constitute a written consent from the model so we're not saying it's inappropriate here for the court to decide as a matter of law under the circumstances of this case that the the appellant signed these documents when there is a blank signature line at the bottom on which they didn't sign when thirty one other releases show that the actors signed on that including adult actors it would it's inappropriate that the district court drew the inference in huntington's favor th language under the signature line meant that only parents must sign on the line that in france as i believe chief chief judge katz been pointed out you could equally draw the inference that it because it says must also sign it means that both parties should sign or at least that the actor doesn't say that an adult actor doesn't need to sign on this line for all of these reasons including huntington's thirty b six witnesses own testimony  testimony that's not addressed at all in huntington's office brief to this all of these pieces of evidence add up to show that there is an issue of fact that the jury should decide whether or not miss kemal in miss huntington printing their names and address on the form constitute their signature and the jury could decide this purely on the basis of common sense and the big thank you for your for your argument thank you very much for arguments the court will reserve decision the