1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

70A.D.3d88(2009)
890N.Y.S.2d16
2009NYSlipOp8889

JOELTHOME,Appellant,
v.
THEALEXANDER&LOUISACALDERFOUNDATION,AlsoKnownasTHECALDER
FOUNDATION,etal.,Respondents.
No.600823/07,580
AppellateDivisionoftheSupremeCourtofNewYork,FirstDepartment.
DecidedDecember1,2009.
93

*93RichardA.Altman,NewYorkCity,forappellant.
SidleyAustinLLP,NewYorkCity(SaimaS.Ahmed,StevenM.BiermanandElizabethP.Williamsofcounsel),for
respondents.
ANDRIAS,J.P.,SWEENY,NARDELLIandFREEDMAN,JJ.,concur.

94

*94OPINIONOFTHECOURT
SAXE,J.
Thisappealarisesoutofplaintiff'seffortstoobtainfromdefendant,theAlexander&LouisaCalderFoundation,apositive
response,oranyresponse,tohissubmissionseekingitsauthenticationoftwotheatricalstagesetsandrelatedmaterial
inhispossession(theWork)thatheclaimsweretheworkofrenownedartistAlexanderCalder.Itraisesthequestionof
whetheraprivatefoundationsuchasthishasanylegalobligationeithertothepublicatlargeortoownersofartworkto
authenticatethatwork.
TheCalderFoundationisaprivatefoundationformedin1988underNewYork'sNotForProfitCorporationLaw.
Accordingtoits2004taxreturn,theFoundationwasformedfortheprincipalpurposeof"cataloguingalltheworks
producedbytheartistAlexanderCalderandmakinghisworksavailableforpublicinspectioninordertofacilitateart
educationandresearch."DefendantAlexanderS.C.RoweristheFoundation'schairmananddirector,andtheremaining
individualdefendantsaretrusteesoftheFoundation.AlltheindividualdefendantsarerelatedtoAlexanderCalderby
bloodormarriage.
Bymid2007,theFoundationhaddocumentedmorethan17,000ofCalder'sworksforpublicationinitscatalogue
raisonn,anannotated,illustratedcomprehensivelistingoftheartist'swork."Acatalogueraisonnisregardedasa
definitivecatalogueoftheworksofaparticularartistinclusionofapaintinginacatalogueraisonnservesto
authenticatethework,whilenoninclusionsuggeststhattheworkisnotgenuine"(KirbyvWildenstein,784FSupp1112,
1113[SDNY1992]).
Plaintiff'scomplaintsetsoutthehistoryandcircumstancessurroundingthecreationoftheworkatissuehere,andfor
purposesofthisCPLR3211motion,weacceptthefactualrecitationastrue(EBCI,Inc.vGoldman,Sachs&Co.,5NY3d
11,19[2005]).Inthe1930s,AlexanderCaldercreatedastageset,whichlaterwasdestroyed,fora1936productionof
ErikSatie'smusicalcompositionSocrate.In1975,plaintiff,amusician,composerandconductorofcontemporarymusic,
hadaconversationwithcomposerVirgilThomson,whodirectedthe1936productionofSocrate.Thetwomendiscussed
thepossibilityofrecreatingtheCaldersetandmountinganewtheatricalproductionofthepiece.Thomsoncontacted
Calderaboutthepossibilityofarevival,andCalderrespondedfavorably.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

1/11

1/8/14

95

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

PlaintiffassertsthatwhenCaldercametoNewYorkfromhishomeinFranceinOctober1975inconnectionwithan
exhibition*95ofhisworkattheWhitneyMuseum,hediscussedtheplansfortherecreationofthesetnotonlywith
plaintiff,butwithanumberofothers,includingCalderfamilymembers,twoofwhomaredefendantsinthisaction.The
WhitneyMuseumwasinpossessionofthedrawingsfortheoriginal1936theaterset,andanarchitectwashiredto
prepareworkingplans.InJuly1976Calder'sdealerbroughtthecompletedplanstoCalder,whoreviewedand
approvedthem,writingontheplans,"DearJoelIhavelookedatthedrawings&findthemOK,andthinkeverythingOK,&
constructioncanbeginwhenyouareready."AprofessoroffineartswasappointedbyCalder'sdealertocarryoutthe
constructionoftherecreatedset,andatCalder'srequest,toconstructinadditionasecondset,onethirdsmallerthan
theoriginal,tofitsmallerprosceniums.Thetwosetsandamaquetteasmallscalemodeloftheworkwerethen
completed,atplaintiff'sexpense.
CalderdiedinNovember1976,beforethedatethathadbeenarrangedforhimtoseeandhavehisphotographtaken
withthecompletedsets,andbeforetheproductionwasperformed.Theperformancewaspostponedtheproductionwas
successfullystagedinNewYorkayearlater.Plaintiffhaskeptthesetsandthemaquettesincethen.
In1997,plaintiff,inneedoffunds,decidedtoselltheWork.HesubmittedthenecessarydocumentationtotheFoundation
foritsauthenticationandinclusionintheFoundation'sCaldercatalogueraisonn.Hiscomplaintexplainsthatwithouta
catalogueraisonnnumberfromtheFoundation,theWorkis"essentiallyunmarketable,"sinceintheartworld,refusalor
failuretoincludeaworkintheartist'scatalogueraisonnistantamounttoadeterminationthattheworkisnotauthentic.
OnSeptember15,1997,theFoundationsentplaintiffapostcardacknowledgingthatithadreceivedhismaterialsand
statingthatithad"everythingnecessarytoconsidertheseworksforinclusioninthecatalogueraisonn."In1998,plaintiff
alleges,furtherdocumentationontheWorkwassubmittedtotheFoundation,whichtheFoundationsimilarly
acknowledgedreceivingplaintiffdoesnotelaborateonthenatureof,ortheneedfor,thisadditionaldocumentation.
PlaintiffalsoassertsthathehadaconversationwithdefendantAlexanderS.C.RowerinNovember1997,inwhich

96

RowerstatedthattheWorkwouldbeincludedinthecatalogueraisonn"inamannertobedetermined,"andthetwo
discussedandagreeduponthedescriptivewording,"giventheissues*96raisedbyitsuniquenessinCalder'soeuvre."
Accordingtoplaintiff,Rowerstatedthatthemainsetwouldbedescribedasa"recreation"andthatthesecond,smaller
setwouldbedescribedasa"newcataloguecreation."
However,withoutexplanation,theCalderFoundationdidnotincludetheWorkinthecatalogueraisonn.Overtheyears
sincethen,plaintiffhasreceivedoffersforthesets,contingentontheirauthenticationbytheFoundationandthe
assignmenttothemofcatalogueraisonnnumbers,buthehadbeenunabletocompletetheproposedsalesbecause
theFoundationhasnottakenthatstep.Indeed,accordingtoplaintiff'saffidavit,in2005,oneofthepotentialbuyersre
submittedthesetmaterialstotheFoundation,and"peopleattheFoundation"toldhisbroker/appraiserthat"theyhada
fileontheWork,butthatnumberswouldnotbeissued."
BysummonsandcomplaintdatedMarch14,2007,plaintiffcommencedthisaction,seeking,interalia,ajudgment
declaringtheWorktobeanauthenticworkofandbyAlexanderCalderamandatoryinjunctioncompellingtheWork's
inclusioninthecatalogueraisonnanddamagesforbreachofcontract,tortiousinterferencewithprospectivebusiness
advantage,andproductdisparagement.Defendantmovedtodismissthecomplaintonthegroundsthatthecomplaint
failedtostateanycauseofactionandwastimebarred.Further,defendantsMaryCalderRower,SandraCalder
Davidson,andShaunDavidsonmovedtodismissonthegroundthat,asnoncompensatedtrusteesofaqualified
charitablefoundation,theyareimmunefromliability.Plaintiffcrossmovedforanorderconvertingdefendants'motiontoa
motionforsummaryjudgmentandgrantingsummaryjudgmenttohim,assertingthattherecouldbe"noquestionasto
theauthenticity"oftheWork.
Themotioncourtgranteddefendants'dismissalmotion,anddeniedleavetoreplead.Weagreewiththecourt'sdismissal
ofthecomplaint,concludingthatthefactsasallegedfailtostateacauseofaction.Theallegationsevokeoursympathy
forplaintiffandsomepuzzlementatthelackofaformalresponse.Many,ifnotall,ofthelegalissuesraisedheremight
havebeenavoidedhadtheFoundationprovidedplaintiffwithsomeexplanatoryresponsetohissubmission.However,
determinationofthisappealturnsonneitherofthosereactions.Asdefendantscontend,andplaintiffdoesnotdispute,it

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

2/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

turnsonwhetheradutyisowedtoplaintiffbyanyofthedefendantsthatwouldentitlehimtoanyofthereliefheseeks
97

whetherbasedonthe*97Foundation'snotforprofitstatus,oritsexplicitorimplicitpromisesorassertions,oritsunique
positionasthesolearbiterofwhetherworkwillbeincludedinCalder'scatalogueraisonn.Wediscernnosuchdutyon
defendants'part,andthereforenoenforceablerightofplaintifftoreliefagainstthem.
WhileplaintiffchallengestheFoundation'sfailuretorespondeitherwaytohissubmission,hisfirsttwocausesofaction,
thefirstseekingajudgmentdeclaringtheWorktobeanauthenticworkofandbyAlexanderCalder,andthesecond
seekingamandatoryinjunctioncompellingtheWork'sinclusioninthecatalogueraisonn,arebaseduponthe
contentionthatheisabsolutelyentitledtotheWork'sauthenticationanditsinclusionintheCaldercatalogueraisonn.
However,whenallplaintiff'sallegationsareacceptedastrue,hehasnotestablishedarighttoeitherformofrelief.

MandatoryInjunctionCompellingtheWork'sInclusionintheFoundation's
CatalogueRaisonn
Initially,wefindnosupportforthepropositionthatourcourtsmaybymandatoryinjunctionaffirmativelycompelaprivate
entitysuchastheCalderFoundationtoincludeaparticularworkinitscatalogueraisonnbasedsolelyonthecourt's
independentfindingthattheworkisauthentic.
Cataloguesraisonnaregenerallyundertakenbyascholarwhohasstudiedtheartist'swork,adealerwithexpertisein
thatartist'swork,ortheartist'sestate,orsomecombinationofthem(seeMichaelFindlay,TheCatalogueRaisonn,in
Spencer,TheExpertversustheObject:JudgingFakesandFalseAttributionsintheVisualArts[RonaldD.Spencer,
editor],at57[OxfordUnivPress2004]).Whileinsomeinstancesmorethanonesuchcatalogueofaparticularartist's
workmaybecreated,inthecaseofacontemporaryartistwhoseestateownsthereproductionrightstohisorherworks,
theestatewillhavetherighttoprecludeotherauthoritiesfrompublishingcompetingcataloguesraisonnofthatartist's
work(seePeterKraus,TheRoleoftheCatalogueRaisonnintheArtMarket,inTheExpertversustheObject,supraat
69).However,regardlessofwhetheranentityownstheartist'sreproductionrightsandconsequentlytheunique
entitlementtopublishthatartist'scatalogueraisonn,thecreationofacatalogueraisonnisavoluntaryact,andneither
98

itsissuancenoritscontentsarecontrolledbyanygovernmentalregulatoryagency(id.).Noristhereanyguaranteethat
theartworldwillacceptthevalidityandreliabilityofa*98catalogueraisonnindeed,cataloguesmayberejectedor
ignoredasunreliable(id.).Whethertheartworldacceptsacatalogueraisonnasadefinitivelistingofanartist'sworkis
afunctionofthemarketplace,ratherthanofanylegaldirectiveorrequirement.Asaconsequence,neitherthecreationof
suchacataloguenoritsinclusionorexclusionofparticularworkscreatesanylegalentitlementsorobligations.
Assumingthetruthofplaintiff'sassertionthattheFoundationhasbeenacceptedbytheartworldasthebodytocreatean
authoritativeCaldercatalogueraisonn,thatfactalonedoesnotgiveacourttherighttodictatewhattheFoundationwill
includeinthatcatalogue,justasnocourthastheauthoritytocompelascholarlyauthorofatreatiseonCaldertoinclude
alistingordiscussionofaparticularwork.UnlessplaintiffcanestablishanindependentlegalrighttohavetheWork
includedinthecatalogue,suchasanenforceablecontractualpromisetoincludeit,therecanbenoinjunctionmandating
theWork'sinclusion.
Importantly,theinjunctivereliefplaintiffseeksisanordercompellingtheauthenticationoftheWorkhedoesnotseekan
ordercompellingmerelyaresponse.Inanyevent,however,asapracticalmatter,plaintiff'sfactualallegationsestablish
thattheFoundation'snonresponsetohissubmissionwasinfactarejectionofthesubmission.Atsomepointafterthe
elapseofareasonableamountoftime,thefailuretoissueanaffirmativeresponse,andindeedthefailuretoincludethe
Workinthecatalogueraisonn,hadtobereadasarefusaltoincludetheWorkinthecatalogue.Indeed,plaintiffhimself
assertedthatafterthebroker/appraiserworkingforoneofthecollectorsinterestedinpurchasingthesetsresubmitted
thedocumentationtotheFoundation,hewastoldthat"theyhadafileontheWork,butthatnumberswouldnotbe
issued."Thus,itmayreasonablybeinferredthatplaintiffreceived,indirectlyorbyinaction,theFoundation'sresponsehe
justwantsadifferentresponse.However,heisnotentitledtoit.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

3/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

DeclarationofAuthenticitybytheCourt
ThejudgmentplaintiffseeksdeclaringthattheWorkistheauthenticworkofAlexanderCalderisalsoinappropriatein
thesecircumstances.
"Authenticationistheprocessbywhichartexpertsacademicorindependentarthistorians,museumorcollection
99

curators,artdealers,orauctionhouseexpertsattributeaworkof*99visualart...toaparticularartist"(Spencer,
Introduction,TheExpertversustheObject,supraatxi[emphasisomitted]).Whilequestionsofauthenticitytypicallyarise
whensomeoneassertsthataworkpurportingtobeanoriginalisactuallyacopy,theycanalsoarisewhereworkswere
createdincollaborationwithothersandwhereworkwassubsequentlyalteredbyanother,evensometimeswherean
alterationwaspromptedbyanattemptatrestoration(seeDuBoff,ControllingtheArtfulCon:Authenticationand
Regulation,27HastingsLJ973,978979[19751976]).Itmayalsohappenthatwhereanartistdesignsaworkand
providesascalemodeltoafacilitysuchasafoundrythatwillconstructafullsizedversionfromthedesign,iftheartist
diesbeforethefullsizedworkisactuallyconstructed,thefinalproductmaynotbeamenabletoauthentication(see
AndreEmmerichGallery,Inc.vSegre,1997WL672009,1997USDistLEXIS16899[SDNY1997]AELiquidationCorp.
vSegre,2000WL204525,2000USDistLEXIS1756[SDNY2000]).
"[T]heprocessofauthenticationofvisualartdependschieflyonthescholarshipofartexperts"(Spencer,Introduction,The
ExpertversustheObject,supraatxi).Sinceartauthenticationinvolvestheexerciseoftheexpert'sinformedjudgment,it
ishighlysubjective,andevenhighlyregardedandknowledgeableexpertsmaydisagreeonquestionsofauthentication
(seeLevy,LiabilityoftheArtExpertforProfessionalMalpractice,1991WisLRev595,596[1991]).
Simplyput,determinationsoftheauthenticityofartworkarecomplexandhighlysubjectiveassertionsoffact.Assuch,
disputesconcerningauthenticityareparticularlyillsuitedtoresolutionbydeclaratoryjudgment.Thelawcannotgivean
artowneraclearlegalrighttoadeclarationofauthenticitywhensuchadeclarationbydefinitionwillnotbedefinitive.
Declaratoryjudgmentsareameanstoestablishtherespectivelegalrightsofthepartiestoajusticiablecontroversy(see
CPLR3001seegenerally43NYJur2d,DeclaratoryJudgments4,22)."Thegeneralpurposeofthedeclaratory
judgmentistoservesomepracticalendinquietingorstabilizinganuncertainordisputedjuralrelationeitherasto
presentorprospectiveobligations"(JamesvAldertonDockYards,256NY298,305[1931]seeSiegel,NYPrac436,
at738[4thed]).Whilefactissuescertainlymaybeaddressedandresolvedinthecontextofadeclaratoryjudgment

100

action(seeSiegel,NYPrac436,at739,citingRocklandLight&PowerCo.vCityofNewYork,289NY*10045[1942]),
thepointandthepurposeofthereliefistodeclaretherespectivelegalrightsofthepartiesbasedonagivensetoffacts,
nottodeclarefindingsoffact.Considerationofsometypicaltypesofdeclaratoryjudgments,suchasdeclarations
regardingthevalidityofaforeigndivorce,theapplicabilityofaninsurancepolicytoaclaim,andtheconstitutionalityofa
statute(seeSiegel,NYPrac437,at740741),helpsillustrateboththevalueofdeclaratoryjudgmentsinappropriate
circumstancesandtheirinapplicabilityinthepresentcontext.
ProfessorSiegelhasremarkedthatthedeclaratoryjudgmentactionhasbeenemployedasawaytoresolvearelatively
uniquedisputewheretheplaintiffis"unabletofindamongthetraditionalkindsofactiononethatwillenablehertobring
ittocourt"(seeid.at742,citingKalmanvShubert,270NY375[1936]).InKalman,theplaintiff,whohadcomposedfive
operettas,soughtajudgmentdeclaringthatthedefendantdidnothaveacontractualrighttoperformtheoperettas.The
issuearosebecause,althoughhehadnotyetperformedplaintiff'soperettas,thedefendantclaimedtohaveacontractual
righttoperformthem,basedontheplaintiff'swrittenoffertoenterintoacontractallowingthedefendanttoperformthe
operettasuponpaymentofaroyaltyof$100perweekforeachweekanoperettawasperformed.Theplaintiffcontended
thattheofferhadneverbeenaccepted,sotherewasnocontract(270NYat376377).TheCourtofAppealsreversedthe
dismissaloftheaction,explainingthatwhilemostformsofreliefwouldnotbeavailableunlessthedefendantactually
performedtheworks,theplaintiffneededtheaffirmativereliefofadeclaratoryjudgment"toquietadisputedjuralrelation
astobothpresentandprospectiveobligations"(id.at378).
Atfirstblush,thepresentcasemayseemsimilarlytocalloutfordeclaratoryreliefbecausenootherformofreliefseems
applicable.However,thecrucialdifferenceisthat,here,whatplaintiffseeksisactuallyafindingoffact,namelyafinding

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

4/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

bythecourtthattheWorkisanauthenticCalder.Notonlywouldthisbeahighlyunusualuseofadeclaratoryjudgment,
butitwouldnotaccomplishtheverypurposeofthecauseofactionthatofresolvingtheparties'respectivelegalrights.
Evenifsuchadeclarationcouldbesaidtoaffectplaintiff'srights,oratleasthavepotentialmonetaryvaluetohim,itwould
havenoimpactatallonanyrightsofdefendants,butwouldmerelystand,atbest,asarecordthattheFoundation's
assessmentoftheWorkwasdisputed.
101

*101Moreover,becauseoftheproceduresandprocessesbywhichourcivillitigationisdecided,courtsarenotequipped
todeliverameaningfuldeclarationofauthenticity.Forsuchapronouncementtohaveanyvalidityinthemarketplaceor
theartworld,itwouldhavetobesupportedbythelevelofjustificationsufficienttosupportapronouncementbya
recognizedartexpertwithcredentialsintherelevantspecialty.Forexample,intheFrenchlegalsystem,declarationsof
authenticityarereportedlymadebycourts,buttheyarebasedonmorethanadeterminationofwhichside'sexpertisthe
morecredible.Inadditiontotheparties'disputingexperts,theFrenchcourtappointsitsownneutralexpertwho
possessesthenecessaryexpertise(seeVanKirkReeves,EstablishingAuthenticityinFrenchLaw,inTheExpertversus
theObject,supraat228).Incontrast,inourlegalsystem,courtshaveneithertheeducationtoappropriatelyweighthe
experts'opinionsnortheauthoritytoindependentlygatherallavailableappropriateinformationwecanonlybaseour
conclusionsontheevidencethepartieschoosetopresenttous,andourfindingsastoaparty'sentitlementtoreliefare
generallymadeaccordingtoapreponderanceoftheevidencestandard.So,anydeclaratoryjudgmentofauthenticitya
courtissuedwouldamounttoastatementthatthepreponderanceoftheevidencesubmittedtoitsupportedafindingthat
theworkatissuewasgenuine.Evenifweconsidereddeclaratoryrelieftobeproperinthiscontext,suchalimited
determinationwould,inanyevent,beofnovalue.Indeed,itwouldbesimilartoamereadvisoryopinion.
Thisisnottosaythatcourtsdonotaddresstheissueofauthenticity.Courtsareoftenrequiredtoissuefindingsastoart
works'authenticityasanelementofclaims,suchasthosebroughtbydissatisfiedbuyers,seekingmoneydamagesfrom
sellersorappraisers,orrescissionofartsales.However,intheseactions,thereliefawardedbythecourtbindsonlythe
partiestothetransaction,anddoesnotattempttoaffecttheartmarketgenerally.Althoughitispossibleforacourt's
pronouncementregardingawork'sauthenticitytohaveanimpactonthework'smarketvalue,anysuchimpactwouldbe
anincidentaleffectofthedecisionratherthanitscentralpurpose.
Considerationofsomespecificcasesinwhichissuesofauthenticityarosehelpstoframethenatureoftheproblems
inherentincourtdeterminationsrelatingtoauthenticity.
ThecaseofGreenwoodvKoven(880FSupp186[SDNY1995])describesadisputeamongabuyer,aseller,and

102

Christie's*102auctionhouseregardingtheauthenticityofapastelpurportedlybytwentiethcenturyFrenchpainter
GeorgesBraque.Thesellerofthepastelhadprovideddocumentationthatithadbeenpurchasedfromthegallerythat
servedasBraque'sexclusivedealer,andtwooftheauctionhouse'sartexpertswhospecializedinimpressionistand
moderndrawingandpaintingandwhowereconsideredspecialistsonBraqueconcludedthatthework'sauthenticitywas
unquestionable.However,shortlyafterthesale,thesuccessfulbidderraisedquestionsaboutthepastel'sauthenticity,
demandingwrittenverificationofthework'sauthenticitybyascholar.Christie'scontactedtheindividualinFrancewho
holdsthe"droitmoral"forBraquetheartist'sheirordesigneewho,underFrenchlaw,possessesthelegalauthorityto
authenticatewhichworksweredonebytheartist(id.at189).Thatindividualinformedtheauctionhousethatthepastel
couldnotberecognizedasaworkbyBraqueandthatacertificateofauthenticitywouldnotbeissued.TheDistrictCourt
grantedsummaryjudgmentrequiringthesellertoreturnthesaleproceeds,rejectingtheseller'sclaimsthattheauction
househadactedimproperlyanddismissingtheseller'sclaimsagainstthebuyer.Thecourtitselfwasnotcalleduponto
decidewhethertheworkwasactuallybyBraquethebuyer'sentitlementtorescindthesalewasbasedonthetermsof
thecontracts.
ThebuyerswerenotgrantedrescissioninthecaseofGreenbergGallery,Inc.vBauman(817FSupp167[DDC1993],
affd36F3d127[DCCir1994]),wheretheyclaimedthatthesellerhadsoldthemaforgeryofaCalderwork,andsuedon
fraudandcontractclaims.Thetrialcourt,uponhearingtheopinionsoftheparties'competingexperts,rejectedtheviewof
theplaintiffs'expertthattheworkwasnottheauthenticwork,andthereforedismissedthecomplaint.Itsconclusionwas
basedlargelyonitsviewthattheplaintiffs'expert,KlausPerls,whohadbeenCalder'sexclusivedealerandwasan
acknowledgedpreeminentexpertonCalder'swork,hadconductedtoocursoryanexaminationofthesculptureto

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

5/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

warranttheadoptionofhisopinionthattheworkwasinauthentic.
ItistheaftermathoftheGreenbergGallerydecisionthatillustratestheinabilityofourlegalsystemtoprovideadefinitive
determinationofauthenticitysuchasissoughtbyplaintiffhere.WhiletheDistrictCourtinGreenbergGalleryrejectedthe
opinionoftheplaintiffs'expert,KlausPerls,becauseitconsideredhisexaminationoftheworkinsufficient,theart
103

marketplacehasprovedtobeofadifferentview:Asaconsequence*103ofhisopinion,thework'svaluehasbeen
assessedtobenegligible(seeSpencer,AuthenticationinCourt:FactorsConsideredandStandardsProposed,inThe
ExpertversustheObject,supraat189).
Thepointisthatadeclarationofauthenticitywouldnotresolveplaintiff'ssituation,becausehisinabilitytosellthesetsis
afunctionofthemarketplace.IfbuyerswillnotbuyworkswithouttheFoundation'slistingtheminitscatalogueraisonn,
thentheproblemliesintheartworld'svoluntarysurrenderofthatultimateauthoritytoasingleentity.Ifitisimmaterialto
theartworldthatplaintiffhasproofthatthesetswerebuilttoCalder'sspecifications,andthatCalderapprovedoftheir
construction,thenitwillbeimmaterialtotheartworldthatacourthaspronouncedthework"authentic."Plaintiff'sproblem
canbesolvedonlywhenbuyersarewillingtomaketheirdecisionsbasedupontheWorkandtheunassailablefacts
aboutitscreation,ratherthanallowingtheFoundation'sdecisionsastowhatmeritsinclusioninitscatalogueraisonnto
dictatewhatisworthyofpurchase.
Wethereforeconcludethat,evenassumingthetruthofplaintiff'sassertionsoffact,heisnotentitledtoadeclarationof
authenticity.

BreachofContract
Inhiscauseofactionforbreachofcontract,plaintiffdoesnotclaimthattheFoundationhadacontractualobligationto
authenticatetheWork,butratherthatthecontractualobligationbreachedbytheFoundationwassimplytorespondtohis
submissionwithinareasonableamountoftime.HereliesontheFoundationWebsite'sinvitationtothepublictosubmit
applicationsforpossibleinclusionintheCaldercatalogueraisonn,reasoningthatthatconstitutesanoffertoenterinto
aunilateralcontract,whichisacceptedbythesubmissionofdocumentationregardingawork,therebyformingabinding
contract.Thetermsofthatcontract,heasserts,arethattheFoundationagreestoinvestigateandtorender,withina
reasonabletime,adeterminationastotheauthenticityofanyworkforwhichdocumentationissubmitted.
Themotioncourtcorrectlyconcludedthattheseallegationsfailtostateacauseofactionforformationandbreachofa
bindingcontract.Foracontracttobecreated,regardlessofwhetheritisbilateralorunilateral,"theremustbea
104

manifestationofmutualassentsufficientlydefinitetoassurethatthe*104partiesaretrulyinagreementwithrespecttoall
materialterms"(MatterofExpressIndus.&Term.Corp.vNewYorkStateDept.ofTransp.,93NY2d584,589[1999]).For
aninvitationtoconstituteanoffer,itmustbeplainandclearenoughtoestablishtheintendedtermsoftheproposed
contract(SchenectadyStoveCo.vHolbrook,101NY45,48[1885]S.S.I.Invs.vKoreaTungstenMin.Co.,80AD2d155,
161[1981],affd55NY2d934[1982],citing9NYJur,Contracts21).TheassertedlanguageoftheFoundationWebsite
invitingorencouragingartownerstosubmittheirmaterialsforpossibleinclusioninthecatalogueistoovagueto
establishthetermsofacontractthatwouldbeformedbyacceptanceofthatinvitationthroughtheactofsendinginsuch
materials.NordoesthelanguageoftheWebsitemanifestanyintentthattheFoundationwillbeboundbyitsreceiptof
anysuchsubmission.Similarly,theformacknowledgmentsentbytheFoundationtoplaintiff,informinghimthatthe
Foundationreceivedhissubmission,doesnotcontainanylanguageindicating,orreinforcing,anyintenttoforma
bindingcontract.
Furthermore,plaintifffailstoallegethathissubmissionwasinresponsetotheWebsite'sinvitation,orindeedthatthe
Websiteevenexistedatthetimeofhissubmission.
EvenifweagreedthattheallegationsmakeoutaclaimthattheFoundationhadacontractualobligationtoexplicitly
respondtoplaintiff'ssubmission,wewouldfindthattheclaimisuntimely.Althoughtheaccrualdatemaybedifficultto
statewithprecision,thefailuretorespondoccurred,andtheclaimthereforeaccrued,areasonabletimeafterthe1997
submissionyearsbeyondthesixyearlimitationsperiod(CPLR213[1])forthiscontractactioncommencedin2007.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

6/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

Nordoesasubsequentidenticalrequestfromthesamepartystartthelimitationsperiodrunningagain(seee.g.Taggart
vStateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co.,272AD2d222[2000]).

PromissoryEstoppel
Wealsorejectplaintiff'sclaimthathisallegedconversationwithAlexanderS.C.RowerinNovember1997creates
groundsforreliefunderthedoctrineofpromissoryestoppel.Evenacceptingthata"clearandunambiguouspromise"is
madeoutbyRower'sallegedstatementthattheWorkwouldbeincludedinthecatalogueraisonn"inamannertobe
determined,"inwhichthemainsetwouldbedescribedasa"recreation"andthesecond,smallersetasa"newcatalogue
105

creation"*105(see99RealtyCo.vEikenberry,242AD2d215,216[1997]),neitherthecomplaintnorplaintiff'saffidavit
allegesorsupportsaninferenceofdetrimentalreliance,anotherelementnecessarytomakeoutacauseofactionfor
promissoryestoppel(EmigrantBankvUBSRealEstateSec.,Inc.,49AD3d382,384[2008]RosenbergvHomeBoxOff.,
Inc.,33AD3d550[2006],lvdenied8NY3d804[2007]).

ProductDisparagement
Ofallplaintiff'scausesofaction,thetortofproductdisparagementmostcloselydescribesthecruxofhisclaims,that
defendants'failuretoauthenticateandlisttheWorkreflectstheirpurposefulefforttopreventhimfromsellingitatitstrue
marketvalueinordertobenefitthemselves.
"[P]roductdisparagementisanactiontorecoverforwordsorconductwhichtendtodisparageor
negativelyreflectuponthecondition,value,orqualityofaproductorproperty,and...theelementsofa
productdisparagementwhichmustbeprovenare:(1)falsityofthestatement(2)publicationtoathird
person(3)malice(expressorimplied)and(4)specialdamages"(44NYJur2d,DefamationandPrivacy
273[footnotesomitted]).
"[H]istorianstraceitsancestrytothecommonlawtortofslanderoftitle,"whichwaseventuallyextendedtoapplytothe
disparagementofthequalityofproperty(seeRuder&FinnvSeaboardSur.Co.,52NY2d663,670[1981]).Product
disparagementhasbeenappliedincasesinvolvingassertionsthatartworkwasinauthenticorforged(seee.g.Kirbyv
Wildenstein,784FSupp1112[SDNY1992]HahnvDuveen,133Misc871[1929]).
InHahnvDuveen(133Misc871[1929]),theplaintiffwaspermittedtoproceedwiththeclaimagainstanartexpertbased
ontheexpert'spublishedassertionthatapaintingtheplaintiffownedwasnotauthenticthestatementhadcaused
negotiationsforthesaleofthepaintingtobesuspendedandpotentiallyaffectedfuturesalepossibilities.InKirbyv
Wildenstein(784FSupp1112,1114[1992]),aproductdisparagementclaimwasbroughtbyapainting'sowneragainst

106

anartexpertengagedtoverifythework'sauthenticity,who,afterexaminingthework,"concludedthatthePaintingwas
either`skinned,'meaningthatithadsufferedtheremovalofpaintthroughovercleaning,oracopy."Althoughitwas
ultimatelydecidedthatthepainting*106wouldbelistedinthecatalogueraisonnasauthenticwiththenotationthatit
hadbeendamagedbyanabusiverestorationandcleaningtheplaintiffthereafterfoundthathewasunabletosellthe
painting.WhilethecourtdismissedtheproductdisparagementclaiminKirbyonthepleadings,thatresultwasduetothe
plaintiff'sfailuretopleadspecialdamagesthecourtdidnotreachthequestionofwhethertheotherelementsofproduct
disparagementweremadeout(784FSuppat1114,1117).
Thedifficultyofapplyingtheproductdisparagementcauseofactiontotheassertionsmadeinthepresentcaseisthat
plaintiffherehasallegednoaffirmativepublicationofafalsestatementtothirdpersons.Rather,hereliesontheassertion
thatthedefendants'actions"inrefusingtoauthenticatetheWorktendtodisparageandreflectnegativelyontheWork
anditsquality,condition,andvalue."Thecontentionthatdefendantsremainedsilentwhentheyshouldhavespokenhas
neverbeenheldtosatisfytherequirementofastatementpublishedtoathirdparty.
Nevertheless,assomecommentatorshavesuggested,asapracticalmatter,thedenialofauthenticationisarguably
indistinguishablefromadirectassertionofinauthenticity.Onewriterhasobserved:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

7/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

"Forpersonswithaninterestinaworkofartpurportedlybyaparticularartist,itisnaturallyofimportance
thattheworkbeincludedinthatartist'scatalogueraisonn.Acommonpracticeamongauthorsand
editorsofcataloguesraisonnswhodeemaworkinauthenticistorespondtoanapplicantforinclusion
withtheseeminglyinnocuousandambiguousstatementthatthework`willnotappearintheforthcoming
catalogue,'ratherthandirectlystatingthattheworkisnotbytheartist.Theviewamongtheseauthorsand
editorsisthatthisapproachwillinsulatethemfromaclaimofproductdisparagement.Itismyviewthata
courtwoulddecidethereislittle,ifanydifferencebetweenthedirectandindirectopinionconcerningthe
work'sauthenticity.Theartmarketclearlyunderstandsthatarefusaltopublishaworkinacatalogue
raisonnisadecisionthattheworkisinauthentic."(SeeSpencer,AuthenticationinCourt:Factors
107

ConsideredandStandardsProposed,inThe*107ExpertversustheObject,supraat191[footnote
omitted].)
Anothercommentatorhassimilarlyremarkedthat
"[w]henacatalogueconcludesaworkisnotunauthentic[sic],theyoftendonotsaysodirectly,butrather
informtheapplicantthattheworkwillnotappearintheforthcomingcatalogue.'Ofcourse,suchindirect
languagedoesnothingtomasktheclearimplicationofthecatalogue'srejection.Therefore,evenwhena
cataloguedoesnotexpresslydisclaimawork,assomedo,nonpublicationcanbe`publication'forthe
purposeofartdisparagement."(SeeOrenstein,Comment,ShowMetheMonet:TheSuitabilityofProduct
DisparagementtoArtExperts,13GeoMasonLRev905,915[2005][footnotesomitted].)
ThereisnoquestionthatadoptingthisapproachandtreatingtheFoundation'snonresponseasapublicationasserting
theWork'sinauthenticitytotheworldatlargewouldconstituteasubstantialexpansionofthelaw.Yetthefactthatnon
inclusioninacatalogueraisonnisunderstoodintheartworldasaconclusionthattheworkisnotauthentic(seeKirbyv
Wildenstein,784FSuppat1113)tendstosupporttheapplicationofthecauseofactionincircumstancessuchasthese.
However,weneednotcometoaconclusiononthatpointinthiscasebecausetheclaimmustinanyeventfailonstatute
oflimitationsgrounds.
Thestatuteoflimitationsforproductdisparagement,aspeciesofdefamationandslanderoftitle,isoneyear(CPLR
215[3]AmericanFed.GroupvEdelman,282AD2d279[2001]).Theclaimedtortiousconductoccurredby1998,when
defendantshadfailedtoauthenticatetheWorkandissuecatalogueraisonnnumberseveniftheclaimdidnotaccrue
untilplaintiffincurredthespecialdamagesresultingfromhisinabilitytocompletetheproposedsalesin2004or2005
becausetheFoundationhadnotauthenticatedtheWork,itcertainlyhadaccruedby2005,atthelatest.Thecontinued
inactionbytheFoundation,andplaintiff'songoingpleastotheFoundationthatitissuecatalogueraisonnnumbers,do
notkeepresettingtheclockforpurposesoftherunningofthelimitationsperiod.

TortiousInterference
Plaintiff'scauseofactionfortortiousinterferencewithprospectivebusinessadvantagewasalsocorrectlydismissed
108

*108normayheamendhispleadingtoclaiminthealternativeacauseofactiononatheoryoftortiousinterferencewith
contract,sincethepleadedfactsdonotincludetheexistenceofavalidcontractbetweenplaintiffandathirdparty(see
LamaHoldingCo.vSmithBarney,88NY2d413,424[1996]).Aclaimfortortiousinterferencewithprospectivebusiness
advantagemustallegethat:(a)theplaintiffhadbusinessrelationswithathirdparty(b)thedefendantinterferedwith
thosebusinessrelations(c)thedefendantactedwiththesolepurposeofharmingtheplaintifforbyusingunlawful
meansand(d)therewasresultinginjurytothebusinessrelationship(CarvelCorp.vNoonan,3NY3d182,189190
[2004]NBTBancorpvFleet/NorstarFin.Group,87NY2d614[1996]HoestenvBest,34AD3d143,159[2006]).
Plaintiffhasnotallegedanyfactssuggestingthatdefendantsviolatedthelaworundertookactionswiththesolepurpose
ofharminghimindeed,byplaintiff'sowntheoryofthecase,defendantsactedwiththeintentofbenefittingthemselves.
Plaintiffhasalsofailedtoallegeanyfactssuggestingthatdefendants'actionswerecriminalorindependentlytortious.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

8/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

Moreover,thetortiousinterferenceclaimisbarredbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitations(CPLR214[4]BullervGiorno,
28AD3d258,258259[2006]).Thetimeonthatclaimbeginstorunwhenthedefendantperformstheaction(orinaction)
thatconstitutestheallegedinterference.Itdoesnotcommenceaneweachtimetheplaintiffisunabletoenterintoa
contract,unlessthedefendanttakessomefurtherstep.Accordingly,likehisbreachofcontractclaim,plaintiff'stortious
interferencecauseofactionaccruedwhentheFoundationfailedtoissuethenumbersforthecatalogueraisonn,thus
purportedlyinjuringplaintiffinhisabilitytoselltheWork(seeKronos,Inc.vAVXCorp.,81NY2d90,94[1993]American
Fed.Group,282AD2dat279).Evenwhere,ashere,theclaimisbasedentirelyontheassertionthatthedefendants'
action(orinaction)hadanegativeeffectoncontractualrelationshipsthatplaintiffmightlaterhavehad,thesubsequent
injuriesallegeddonotaffectthetimelinessissue(JohnsonvNyackHosp.,891FSupp155,166[SDNY1995]).

Officers'andTrustees'Duties
Plaintiff'svaguelypleadedviolationofofficers'andtrustees'dutiesalsofailstostategroundsforrelief.Totheextent
109

plaintiffreliesontheassertionthattheindividualdefendants*109haveafiduciarydutytotheFoundation,thereisno
basisintheallegationstosupportaclaimthatanyofthedefendantsowedafiduciarydutytoplaintiff(seeGranatv
CenterArtGalleriesHawaii,Inc.,1993WL403977,*6,1993USDistLEXIS14092,*1718[SDNY1993,91Civ7252],
citingMechigianvArtCapitalCorp.,612FSupp1421,1431[SDNY1985]),and,absentthat,plaintiffhasnocauseof
actionfortheallegedbreachofsuchaduty(seeHymanvNewYorkStockExch.,Inc.,46AD3d335,337[2007]New
YorkPepsiColaDistribs.Assn.vPepsico,Inc.,240AD2d315[1997]).Thebareallegationsthattheindividual
defendantsdeclinedtoauthenticatetheWorkinanefforttoacquiretheWorkthemselves,inbreachoftheirdutyofloyalty
totheFoundation,cannotformthebasisforabreachofdutyclaimassertedbyplaintiff.
Plaintiffalsoconfusinglyclaimsthattheindividualdefendants,asofficersofanotforprofitcorporationthatisthesole
arbiteroftheauthenticityofpurportedCalderworks,breachedtheirdutytoactingoodfaithinthedischargeoftheir
duties,byfailingtoexaminethesubmittedWorksanddecideissuesofauthenticityingoodfaithbaseduponappropriate
scholarlyinput.Here,too,theindividualdefendants'allegedbreachofadutyplaintiffclaimstheyowetheFoundationas
itsofficerscannotformthebasisofaclaimassertedbyplaintiff,andneithertheFoundation'sstatusasanotforprofit
charitableorganizationnoritsassertedpositionasthesoleauthorityfordeterminingtheauthenticityofclaimedCalder
worksaltersthatfact.
PlaintiffcitesnoauthorityforthepropositionthatanyentityotherthantheAttorneyGeneralhastherighttotakeaction
againstanotforprofitbaseduponaclaimedviolationofitslegalobligations(seeNPCL112).NeithertheFoundation's
taxstatusnorcaselawallowingcharitiesuniqueenforcementrightsforcharitablesubscriptions(seeI.&I.HoldingCorp.
vGainsburg,276NY427,433[1938]MatterofVersaillesFound.[BankofN.Y.],202AD2d334[1994])givesplaintiffany
rightshere.Such"privileges"asareenjoyedbycharitablefoundationsarenotaccompanied,asplaintiffcontends,bya
generallegalresponsibility,enforceablebythepublicatlarge,toactatalltimesinthepublicinterestandavoidactions
thatcouldappearselfserving.IntheeventthereisproofofmisconductorbadfaithonthepartoftheFoundation,the
AttorneyGeneralmay,inhisdiscretion,takeappropriateremedialaction.
AstotheclaimthatdefendantshavesomekindoflegalobligationarisingoutoftheFoundation'spositionasthesole

110

*110recognizedCalderauthorityevenacceptingplaintiff'sassertionthathehasnoalternativemeansofobtaining
authenticationplaintiffhasnoentitlementtothereliefheseeks.Havingthestatusofthedefactosolearbiterof
authenticityofanartist'sworkisnotautomaticallycoupledwithalegalobligationtotakeanyparticularstepsregarding
authentication.Asstatedpreviously,legalobligationsmustbegroundedincontractualduties,tortdutiesorstatutory
duties,noneofwhichareestablishedhere.
Evenifthebreachofofficers'andtrustees'dutyclaimwereviable,itwouldbebarredbythestatuteoflimitations,whichis
sixyearsfromthedateoftheallegedbreach(CPLR213[1]).Sincetheessenceofplaintiff'sclaimisthattheindividual
defendantsbreachedtheirdutieswhentheyfailedtocausetheFoundationtoissuecatalogueraisonnnumbers,the
claimwouldhaveaccruedby1998.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

9/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

CivilConspiracy
Inhiscauseofactionfor"civilconspiracy,"plaintiffallegesthatdefendantsengagedina"commonschemeorplanto
deprive[him]ofhisabsoluterighttoselltheWork."However,asthemotioncourtstated,NewYorkdoesnotrecognizean
independentcauseofactionforcivilconspiracy(ZachariouvManios,50AD3d257[2008]BronxLebanonHosp.Ctr.v
Wiznia,284AD2d265,266[2001],lvdismissed97NY2d653[2001]).Sincenoneofplaintiff'stortclaimsareviableand
timely,thoseclaimscannotformthebasisforacivilconspiracycauseofaction(seeLindenvMoskowitz,294AD2d114,
115[2002],lvdenied99NY2d505[2003]).

ConflictofInterest/DonnellyAct
PlaintiffsuggeststhattheFoundation'sfailuretoauthenticatetheWorkasrequestedcanonlybeattributedtoaneffortby
defendantstodecreasethevalueoftheWorksothattheymayultimatelyacquireitmorecheaply.Thisassertionliesat
theheartofthecauseofactiondenominated"conflictofinterest."Specifically,plaintiffallegesthatdefendantsthemselves
ownanddealinworksbyCalderandthattheywantedtoobtaintheWorkforthemselves.Inrefusingtoauthenticatethe
Work,hereasons,defendantssoughttomanipulatethemarketforCalderworks.Onappeal,plaintiffalsoallegesthatthe
causeofactionissupportedbyGeneralBusinessLaw340etseq.,knownastheDonnellyAct,whichisNewYork's
antitruststatute.
111

*111AplaintiffallegingaclaimundertheDonnellyActmustidentifytherelevantproductmarket,allegeaconspiracy
betweentwoormoreentities,andallegethattheeconomicimpactofthatconspiracywastorestraintradeintherelevant
market(Newsday,Inc.vFantasticMind,237AD2d497[1997]).Plaintiffhasfailedtoallegeeitheraconspiracybetween
twoormoreentitiesorthatanysuchconspiracyhadtheeconomicimpactofrestrainingtrade.
Recently,inanotherlawsuitagainstanartist'sfoundationarisingfromarefusaltoauthenticate,claimswerepermittedto
proceedunderboththefederalShermanActandtheDonnellyAct(seeSimonWhelanvAndyWarholFound.forthe
VisualArts,Inc.,20091TradeCases76,657,2009WL1457177,2009USDistLEXIS44242[SDNY2009,07Civ
6423]).Theplaintiffownedapaintingthatwasallegedlyoneofseveralmadefromanacetatecreatedandchosenby
AndyWarholandthathadpreviouslybeenauthenticated.HecontendedthattheAndyWarholAuthenticationBoard,
whichisresponsibleforauthenticatingWarholworks,andtheAndyWarholFoundationfortheVisualArts,which
publishestheWarholcatalogueraisonn,refusedtoauthenticatethework,infurtheranceofaconspiracytoartificially
reducecompetitioninthemarketforWarholworks,inordertoraisethevalueofWarholworksownedbytheWarhol
FoundationandtoensurethatgalleriesandmuseumschosetheFoundation'sworks.
InholdingthatthecomplaintinSimonWhelansuccessfullystatedaclaimforillegalmarketrestraintandmonopolization,
theDistrictCourtcitedanumberofallegedfacts:thattheBoardmadeunsolicitedsuggestionstoownersofWarholworks
thattheyshouldsubmittheirworksforauthenticationthatsuchpoliciesastheBoardhasregardingauthenticationwere
inconsistentlyappliedthattheBoardreversedpriordeterminationsauthenticatingworksthattheBoardrefusedto
authenticateworksthattheFoundationhadpreviouslyattemptedtopurchaseandthat,unlikeothersuchboards,which
arecomposedofwellqualifiedandwellknownindependentexperts,theWarholBoardismadeupofindividualswho
lackexperienceandwhoarenotindependentoftheWarholFoundation(2009WL1457177at*5,2009USDistLEXIS
44242at*1718).
Plaintiff'scomplaintherecontainsvirtuallynoneoftheallegationsthatmadetherestraintoftradeclaimviableinthe

112

SimonWhelancase.Rather,hereliesontheassertionthattheFoundationownsCalderworkstoinferthatthe
Foundation*112mustberefusingtoauthenticatetheWorkinordertobeabletopurchaseitatsomefuturedatefora
fractionofitsworthasaCalderpiece.Thisspeculativeconclusionisinsufficienttostateacauseofactionunderthe
DonnellyAct.
Theclaimisinanyeventuntimely.Thestatuteoflimitationsforsuchaclaimisfouryears(GeneralBusinessLaw340
[5]).Allelementsoftheallegedwrongfulconducthadalreadyoccurredin1997and1998,whendefendantsdeclinedto

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

10/11

1/8/14

Thome v. ALEXANDER & LOUISA, 70 AD 3d 88 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 2009 - Google Scholar

issuecatalogueraisonnnumbers,andthus,accordingtoplaintiff,engagedinmanipulationofthemarket.Infact,itis
difficulttodivinehowplaintiffcanarguethatthecauseofactionaccruedatalaterdate,sincethegravamenofthiscause
ofactionisnot,asplaintiffsuggestsonappeal,thedamagehesustainedwhenhewasunabletocompleteasale,butthe
manipulationofthemarketthroughthedisparagementoftheWorkdisparagementthatdefendantscommunicated,
accordingtoplaintiff,byremainingsilentabouttheWork'sauthenticity.

QualifiedImmunity
Lastly,thecomplaintcouldnotproceedinanyeventagainsttheindividualdefendants,whoareentitledtoqualified
immunitypursuanttoNotForProfitCorporationLaw720a,inviewoftheaffidavitbytheFoundation'schairmanand
director,AlexanderS.C.Rower,establishingthattheyservedwithoutcompensation,andbecause,asprovidedbyCPLR
3211(a)(11),thereisno"reasonableprobability"thattheirconductconstitutesgrossnegligenceorwasintendedto
causeharm.ThereisnodisputethattheFoundationisasection501(c)(3)organizationundertheInternalRevenue
Code(26USC).AlthoughRowerisnot,asplaintiffnotes,thechieffinancialofficer(CFO)oftheFoundationitdoesnot
appearthattheFoundationhasaCFOheisitschairmananddirector,andtheCPLRdoesnotrequirethatitbethe
CFOwhosubmitsaletter.Rather,theCPLRstatesonlythattheevidence"mayconsist"ofaletterfromtheCFO.Inany
event,thecomplaintfailstoprovideanyspecificallegationssupportingthebaresuggestionthattheindividual
defendantsactedwithgrossnegligenceorwithanintenttoharm(seeRabushkavMarks,229AD2d899,900[1996]).
Accordingly,theorderoftheSupremeCourt,NewYorkCounty(CharlesE.Ramos,J.),enteredApril29,2008,which
113

granteddefendants'motiontodismissthecomplaintanddeniedplaintiff'scrossmotionforsummaryjudgment,is
deemedtobe*113anappealfromthejudgment,samecourtandJustice,enteredMay29,2008(CPLR5501[c]),
dismissingthecomplaint,andsoconsidered,saidjudgmentshouldbemodified,onthelaw,todeclare,withrespectto
plaintiff'sfirstcauseofaction,thatplaintiffisnotentitledtothedeclarationheseeks,andotherwiseaffirmed,without
costs.
Appealfromorder,SupremeCourt,NewYorkCounty,enteredApril29,2008,deemedtobeanappealfromthe
judgment,samecourt,enteredMay29,2008,andsoconsidered,saidjudgmentmodified,onthelaw,todeclare,with
respecttoplaintiff'sfirstcauseofaction,thatplaintiffisnotentitledtothedeclarationheseeks,andotherwiseaffirmed,
withoutcosts.

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2200345932593611368&q=calder+thome&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

11/11