Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered October 24, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ and intervenor defendant’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendants failed to demonstrate that there were no triable issues of fact concerning ownership of the de Kooning painting and concerning successor liability. Defendants failed to provide a consignment agreement listing the painting at issue, and the documents produced do not show which entity purchased the painting. Moreover, plaintiffs provided evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether the painting was properly subject to attachment in connection with a default
The record also reflected triable issues of fact concerning whether Galerie Jacques de la Beraudiere was the successor to Galerie Cazeau-Beraudiere (see Schumacher v Richards Shear Co., 59 NY2d 239 , 244-245 [1983]; Ring v Elizabeth Found. for the Arts, 136 AD3d 525 , 527 [1st Dept 2016]).
Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
Cases cited
- DeSimone v. City of New York 121 AD3d 420 at 421-422 p. 557
- Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co. 59 NY2d 239 at 244-245 p. 557