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.

Addison Thompson, Plaintiff-Appellant v. the andy Warhol Foundation For the Visual Arts

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


February 21, 2013

ADDISON THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, THE ANDY WARHOL MUSEUM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Thompson v Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, 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 February 21, 2013 Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Roman, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered November 14, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. and The Andy Warhol Authentication Board, Inc. to dismiss the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The covenants not to sue in the letter agreements that plaintiff signed bar his claims for breach of contract and gross or ordinary negligence, to the extent such a cause of action can be gleaned from the pro se pleadings (see e.g. Colnaghi, U.S.A. v Jewelers Protection Servs., 81 NY2d 821, 823 [1993]). Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed, as defendants' only duty to plaintiff was that undertaken by the letter agreements. There was no special relationship between the parties that would give rise to a tort claim (see Mandarin Trading v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173 [2011]), and as this court previously observed, the market place is the appropriate place to resolve authentication disputes (Thome v Alexander & Louisa Calder Found., 70 AD3d 88 [2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]).

Contrary to the parties' arguments, neither side has engaged in conduct that warrants the imposition of sanctions.

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

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 21, 2013

CLERK

20130221

© 1992-2013 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.