American-European Art Associates, Inc. v. Trend Galleries, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1996
• Docket Number: AMERICAN-EUROPEAN
• Citation: 227 A.D.2d 170,641 N.Y.S.2d 835
• Parties: , 32 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 419 ART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The TREND GALLERIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 835

641 N.Y.S.2d 835

227 A.D.2d 170, 32 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 419

AMERICAN-EUROPEAN ART ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The TREND GALLERIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

May 7, 1996.

John P. Marshall, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Richard M. Kraver, for defendants-respondents.

Before ELLERIN, J.P., and WALLACH, ROSS, NARDELLI and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 14, 1994, which granted the motion by defendants Trend Galleries, Inc. and Ruth and Andrew Weiss to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (5) and (7), and which denied plaintiffs' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly dismissed the first cause of action for breach by defendants of a purported agreement to sell a painting by Yves Klein entitled "Le Monochrome" to plaintiffs as barred by the Statute of Frauds, section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which precludes enforcement, by way of action or defense, of a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more absent a writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties which is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of a signed written contract reflecting the terms and conditions of their purported purchase agreement (Mendelsohn v. Levine, 24 A.D.2d 1007, 265 N.Y.S.2d 979).

The second cause of action for breach of an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by defendants in allegedly negotiating to sell the painting to another party despite plaintiffs' purported contract with defendants was also properly dismissed for lack of a valid and binding contract from which such a duty would arise (Nifty Foods Corp. v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 F.2d 832; Mocca Lounge v. Misak, 94 A.D.2d 761, 763, 462 N.Y.S.2d 704).

Nor did the IAS court err in dismissing the third cause of action seeking quantum meruit recovery, since plaintiffs have failed to plead any reasonable expectation of being compensated for the reasonable value of their services in connection with the sale of the painting (Umscheid v. Simnacher, 106 A.D.2d 380, 382-383, 482 N.Y.S.2d 295), and since plaintiffs may not utilize a quantum meruit theory of recovery to circumvent the Statute of Frauds (Bauman Assocs. v. H & M Intl. Transp., 171 A.D.2d 479, 484, 567 N.Y.S.2d 404).

The IAS court exercised its discretion...