Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tony Shafrazi Gallery, Inc., Plaintiff, Guido Orsi, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent v. Christie's Inc.

New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts Appellate Division, First Department


December 27, 2012

TONY SHAFRAZI GALLERY, INC., PLAINTIFF, GUIDO ORSI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHRISTIE'S INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, JOHN DOE 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Tony Shafrazi Gallery, Inc. v Christie's Inc.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 27, 2012

Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 17, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Christie's motion for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract and breach of warranty causes of action, and order, same court (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered November 23, 2011, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining fraud claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to the fraud claims, the record contains no evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact whether defendant acted with the requisite intent (see Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). Nor does the record support plaintiff Orsi's contention that defendant acted recklessly in accepting the painting for consignment (see State Street Trust Company v Ernst 278 NY 104 [1938]).

Orsi is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the breach of contract cause of action. In dismissing the breach of warranty cause of action on statute of limitations grounds, the motion court correctly relied on Hanover Square Antiques Limited v Insalaco (6 AD3d 258 [2005] lv. denied 5 NY3d 710 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: DECEMBER 27, 2012

CLERK

20121227

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.