In Marchig v. Christie's, 11-461-cv (July 12, 2011)(summary order), a plaintiff consigned an artwork to Christie's in 1997 she thinks it was painted by Michelangelo's tutor. Christie's tells her it is a nineteenth-century German work. Christie's advises her to change the frame, then sell it. She ok's the sale, but says nothing about the frame. Christie's sells the painting in 1998 for $21,850. In 2009 Christie's tells her it is probably a work by Leonardo da Vinci. She sues in 2010, claiming the work is worth $150 million.
A short, informative and Solomonic opinion on the law of consignments, sales, and authentication claims.
Marchig v Christie's
Result: claim against the painting is time-barred, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the claim for the return of the frame was timely.
Purchase Copyright Litigation Handbook 2010 by Raymond J. Dowd from West here
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Second Circuit - Art Litigation: Claim Over Painting Time-Barred But Claim For Frame Timely
Labels: art dealers, art law, art litigation, authentication, certificates of authenticity, christie's, consignments, conversion, leonardo da vinci, replevin, statutes of limitation
Partner in law firm Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP in New York City litigating in federal and state courts and arbitrations. Experienced trial and appellate practitioner. Author: Copyright Litigation Handbook (Thomson Reuters 2018-2019). The New York Law Journal called it "an indispensable guide". Board of Directors of the Fordham Law Alumni Association, former General Counsel & Director Federal Bar Association, FBA Chair of the Circuit VPs, ViP for Second Circuit. Member Board of Governors, National Arts Club. President, Network of Bar Leaders (2013-2014). Attorney advertising disclaimer - prior results do not guarantee success. The statements and opinions voiced here are my own and not of my law firm.