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

• Decision Date: 27 December 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: 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.

101 A.D.3d 654

955 N.Y.S.2d 875

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09184

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.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Dec. 27, 2012.

Aaron Richard Golub, P.C., New York (Nehemia S. Glanc of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Andrews Kurth LLP, New York (Joseph A. Patella of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

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 N.Y.3d 553, 559, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976 [2009] ). Nor does the record supportplaintiff Orsi's contention that defendant acted recklessly in accepting the painting for consignment ( see State Street Trust Company v. Ernst 278 N.Y. 104, 15 N.E.2d 416 [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, 16 A.D.3d 258, 791 N.Y.S.2d 545 [2005]lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 710, 804 N.Y.S.2d 34, 837 N.E.2d 733 [2005].

MAZZARELLI, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, JJ., concur.