6449N, 655576/17.

161 A.D.3d 455 (2018)

76 N.Y.S.3d 33

2018 NY Slip Op 03240

Anatole Shagalov et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Asher Edelman et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

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

Decided May 3, 2018.

Plaintiffs demonstrated that the parties' arrangement may constitute a collateralized loan and that therefore they were entitled to notice concerning the disposition of the collateral under UCC article 9. Accordingly, plaintiffs met their burden of establishing a reasonable probability of success on the merits of their claim that defendants violated their UCC article 9 rights when they sold Haring's "Untitled (June 3, 1984)" and the Haring Tarp (see Barbes Rest. Inc. v ASRR Suzer 218, LLC, 140 A.D.3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2016]; Four Times Sq. Assoc. v Cigna Invs., 306 A.D.2d 4, 5 [1st Dept 2003]). This is so even assuming that plaintiffs' failure to disclose nonparty Paul Kasmin Gallery's asserted 40% ownership interest in Stella's "La Scienza della Fiacca" at the time of the parties' April 2016 execution of the sale and lease agreements constituted an Event of Default as defined in those agreements.

Given the unique nature of the art works at issue, and regardless of their art dealer status, plaintiffs established that they would be irreparably harmed absent the requested preliminary injunction (see Danae Art Intl. v Stallone, 163 A.D.2d 81 [1st Dept 1990]; see also Christie's Inc. v Davis, 247 F.Supp.2d 414, 424 [SD NY 2002]). The balance of the equities weighs in plaintiffs' favor. The record shows that, even while learning — directly from Kasmin — on August 9, 2017, that any issues with La Scienza would be resolved by August 25, 2017, defendants took active steps to market the works to third parties, without plaintiffs' knowledge and while purporting to afford plaintiffs a chance to exercise their repurchase option under the agreements.

Plaintiffs are required to post an undertaking (CPLR 6312 [b]). We remand the matter to Supreme Court to fix the amount of the undertaking (see Matter of Rockwood Pigments NA, Inc. v Elementis Chromium LP, 124 A.D.3d 509 [1st Dept 2015]; Honeywell Intl. v Freedman & Son, 307 A.D.2d 518 [3d Dept 2003]).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments, including that this case should be assigned to another justice, and find them unavailing.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases