Category Archives: Litigation

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

ourt Parses Agreements and Arts and Cultural Affairs Law

Clean Art Works, Inc. operated the Marianne Boesky Gallery and served as the gallery representative for Diana Al-Hadid until 2019. During that time, Art Works advanced funds, such as studio rent and fabrication, and framing and crating costs, to Al-Hadid to further her career.

In 2009, Al-Hadid created a bronze sculpture fabricated in a five piece limited edition. An undated contract between Al-Hadid and Graphicstudio stated that Graphicstudio would fabricate the sculptures, three of which were numbered as 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 and two numbered as “Artist’s Proofs” AP 1/2 and AP 2/2. The project was initiated in September 2009 and completed in February 2011.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Court Applies UCC and GOL Statutes of Fraud

One of the threshold issues in commercial disputes is often the characterization of the transaction and/or the relief sought. As a recent case involving various claims to the proceeds of the sale of a diamond based upon an alleged oral agreement illustrates, adjudication of the nature of the case may be dispositive when it comes to the defense of the statute of frauds.

Basal Trading and Sons Ltd. alleged an oral partnership agreement with M&G Diamonds, Inc. and Roman Malakov Diamonds, LLC. According to the complaint, the partnership interest was divided equally (50%-50%) between Basal and M&G/Malakov. The partnership owned a one-third interest in a non-party partnership, which owned three diamonds. Under the agreement, three of the parties contributed one half of one third, i.e., one sixth, of the purchase price of the diamonds, and were entitled to receive one half of one third, i.e., one sixth, of the proceeds arising from the sale of any and/or all of the diamonds.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was Affidavit of Deceased Process Server Admissible/Dispositive?

First American Investment Company obtained a default judgment against Orlando Fabian in Civil Court in the Bronx. Fabian moved to vacate the judgment on the ground he had not been served with process. The Court ordered a traverse hearing to determine whether or not Fabian had been served.

Before the commencement of testimony, the Court heard two applications by the parties: First American’s application to cancel the traverse hearing in light of the process server’s death, and Fabian’s application to exclude the now-deceased process server’s affidavit of service that was the impetus of the traverse hearing.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Was Manufacturer Liable For Failure to Warn?

Serpentix Conveyor Corporation manufactured three conveyor machines to be placed in a New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) facility. That facility was undergoing a renovation project which was being performed by WDF, Inc., as the general contractor, and various subcontractors.

The conveyors were delivered and then altered by WDF by adding caster wheels to allow them to be moved. Gennaro Montello, who was employed by the DEP, allegedly was injured while one of the conveyors was being moved, and subsequently died as a result of his injuries. The decedent’s estate and his wife, Donna Montello, who had since died, sued WDF, Serpentix, and others to recover damages. The amended complaint asserted a cause of action against Serpentix for strict products liability. Serpentix moved for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action.