Editing Dog Day Afternoon (section)

=== Lawsuits ===
Wojtowicz's wife, Carmen, received $50 ({{Inflation|US|50|1973|fmt=eq|r=-2|cursign=$}}) from Artists Entertainment Complex for her contribution to the story. She signed the documents to Wicker, who recorded in exchange a tape with her account on behalf of the company. The depiction of her character, Angie, in the film affected her, as she felt she was deemed "repulsive". The novelization of ''Dog Day Afternoon'' described her as "a fat cunt", "no-good pusbag" and a "guinea broad", among other pejorative terms.{{sfn|Jahr, Cliff|1975|p=125}} In the film, Angie laments her weight gain as the reason for Sonny's distance.{{sfn|Schoell, William|2016|p=45}} Wojtowicz was also angered by her depiction in the film, and defined his then-wife as "a sweet kid".{{sfn|Gottlieb, Martin|1977|p=28}} Pierson declared that the character was presented "farthest from the truth", and that he could not "stand how [Lumet] casted the role", or how Peretz portrayed her. He further stressed his disappointment at the publicity campaign that presented the film as a "true story", and remarked its differences with the ''Life'' article.{{sfn|Murphy, Mary|1975|p=11 (Part IV)}} Pierson presented a complaint to the [[Writers Guild of America West|Writers Guild of America]].{{sfn|Murphy, Mary|1975|p=11 (Part IV)}} Kluge, a coauthor of the ''Life'' feature, believed the film-makers "stayed with the surface of a lively journalistic story" and that the film had a "strong, fast-paced story" without "reflection" or "a contemplative view of life".{{sfn|Rayburn, Nina|2001}}

Carmen took legal action against Warner Bros. On behalf of her, and her daughters Carmen and Dawn, Wojtowicz filed a lawsuit alleging [[Right to privacy|invasion of privacy]] and requesting $12,000,000 in damages. The [[New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division|appellate division of the New York Supreme Court]] ruled in favor of Warner Bros, as the court determined that the true names or pictures of the family and robbers were not used in the film or the book.{{sfn|People magazine staff|1977|p=B6}} Wojtowicz then sued the studio for 1% of the earnings he claimed were included in the deal for the use of his story;{{sfn|Jones, J.R.|2014}} he received $40,000 ({{Inflation|US|40,000|1977|fmt=eq|r=-2|cursign=$}}) after lawyer's fees were deducted. The [[New York Supreme Court]] ordered that $100 ({{Inflation|US|100|1980|fmt=eq|r=-2|cursign=$}}) were to be given weekly to Carmen Wojtowicz, plus $50 weekly for both children. The rest of the money was placed in escrow of the New York State Crime Victims Compensation Board to pay for the claims of the victims of the 1972 robbery.{{sfn|Roura|Poster|1980|p=9C}}