that "New York does not recognize [a] cause of action for 'compelled self publication,' ” the decision in Wieder rests on the holding of Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, 172 A.D.2d 254, 255, 568 N.Y.S.2d 84 (1st Dept.1991). As I noted in Van-Go I, the facts of the Weintraub case "did not demonstrate compelled self publication, [] nor was the issue of compelled self publication actually considered.” Van-Go I, 971 F.Supp. at 102-03. Accordingly, the district court's opinion in Kenney would not affect this court's analysis of whether the New York Court of Appeals would recognize a cause of action for compelled self publication. 13 . Kulak v. City of New York, 88 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.1996) concerns an alleged "federal right” that was without any precedent. Id. at 76
recognizing attorneys substantial experience in the practice of law as an aggravating factor holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction holding that no clear line of federal law establishes that it is a substantial departure from accepted practice for a physician to fail to inform a patient of the risks of psychotropic medications holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state