Greason v. Nahmad

2024 NY Slip Op 34289(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedDecember 4, 2024
DocketIndex No. 650646/2014
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 34289(U) (Greason v. Nahmad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Greason v. Nahmad, 2024 NY Slip Op 34289(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

Greason v Nahmad 2024 NY Slip Op 34289(U) December 4, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650646/2014 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/04/2024 01:01 P~ INDEX NO. 650646/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/04/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

EDWARD W. GREASON, INDEX NO. 650646/2014 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 09/30/2024 - V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 038 DAVID NAHMAD, INTERNATIONAL ART CENTER, S.A.,

Defendants. DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 038) 2726, 2727, 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731, 2732, 2733, 2734, 2735, 2736, 2737, 2738, 2739, 2740, 2741, 2742, 2743, 2744, 2745, 2746, 2747, 2748, 2749, 2750, 2751, 2752, 2753, 2754, 2755, 2756, 2757, 2758, 2759, 2760, 2761, 2762, 2763, 2764, 2765, 2766, 2767, 2768, 2769, 2770, 2771, 2772, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2776, 2777, 2778, 2779, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, 2789, 2790, 2791, 2792, 2793, 2794, 2795, 2796, 2797, 2798, 2799, 2800, 2801, 2802, 2803, 2804, 2805, 2806, 2807, 2808, 2809,2810 were read on this motion to VACATE DECISION

Plaintiff Edward W. Greason as Ancillary Administrator D .B.N. of the Estate of Oscar

Stettiner ("Plaintiff') moves for an order: (1) vacating the order ofreferee Michael P. Tempesta,

Esq., dated September 24, 2024; (2) affirming discovery completed with defendants waiving the

pretrial examination of plaintiffs experts as defendants refused to schedule or produce their

expert witnesses for deposition, precluded from offering its experts' testimony at trial unless they

are produced at least 30 days before trial for such examination before trial; (3) assigning a court

referee as plaintiff does not consent to the appointment and continued service of Michael P.

Tempesta, Esq., as a private referee; (4) awarding plaintiff the costs of cancelling air travel and

hotel accommodations for its experts to appear in New York in the sum of $7,972.76; and (5)

such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

650646/2014 GOWEN, GEORGE W. vs. HELL Y NAHMAD GALLERY, INC. Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 038

1 of 5 [* 1] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/04/2024 01:01 P~ INDEX NO. 650646/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/04/2024

DISCUSSION

Per CPLR 3104, "[a]ny party or witness may apply for review of an order made under

this section by a referee ... [s]ervice of a notice of motion for review shall suspend disclosure of

the particular matter in dispute." While there is no standard of review set forth in section

3104( d), courts have generally held that the ruling will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law (CIT Project Fin. v Credit Sussie First Boston LLC., 7 Misc 3d 1002(A) [Sup Ct,

NY County 2005]; Bank Leumi USA v GM Diamonds, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 33276[U], 3 [Sup

Ct, NY County 2018]) or where court "finds that the special master clearly exceeded his

authority and/or misapplied the prevailing law" (Matter of Casale v Metro. Transp. Auth., 23

Misc 3d 1121(A) [Sup Ct, NY County 2009], affd, 75 AD3d 486 [1st Dept 2010]). "Generally,

courts will not disturb the findings of a referee so long as the determination is substantiated by

the record" (Poster v Poster, 4 AD3d 145 [1st Dept 2004]).

Plaintiffs motion to vacate the Sept 2024 Discovery Order is granted in part. The order

ofreferee Michael P. Tempesta, Esq., dated September 24, 2024, provides in full:

1. This Discovery Order is the product of a conference attended by me and counsel for the parties to this action on September 23, 2024. 2. Defendants will file their motion to quash the Wildenstein subpoena on or before October 8, 2024. 3. Defendants will file their motion to preclude expert testimony on or before October 15, 2024. 4. Plaintiff will file their cross-motion to preclude, if any, on or before October 30, 2024. 5. Discovery is hereby stayed pending my decision/order on the foregoing motions.

(NYSCEF 2728 ["Sept 2024 Discovery Order"]).

According to Plaintiff, this largely procedural order (i) "inexplicably" stayed all

discovery, including canceling expert depositions that had been scheduled to proceed shortly

650646/2014 GOWEN, GEORGE W. vs. HELL Y NAHMAD GALLERY, INC. Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 038

2 of 5 [* 2] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/04/2024 01:01 P~ INDEX NO. 650646/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/04/2024

thereafter, based primarily on the omission of the expert's compensation and other minor

biographical information in the expert report - all of which was already corrected; (ii) permitted

defendants to file a motion quash a subpoena of Wildenstein & Co., Inc. on the basis of the

passage of the fact discovery deadline, despite the recent discovery that the Wildenstein Gallery

is the author and original source of a photo of a painting by Amedeo Modigliani, n/k/a Seated

Man with a Cane 1919 ( the "Painting") with the notation "Vole" [Stolen], and an additional

notation, Stettiner family "searching in America"; and (ii) directing that dispositive motions

seeking to preclude plaintiffs from presenting expert testimony at trial of plaintiffs experts'

testimony based on the alleged minor and already corrected insufficiencies, be made before the

referee rather than the Court.

The Order appointing Michael Tempesta provides that "[t]he Discovery Master shall

have the full power and authority pursuant to CPLR § 3104(b) to supervise discovery, conduct

discovery and/or compliance conferences, set or adjust discovery schedules and resolve any

discovery disputes" (NYSCEF 2763). Accordingly, the Special Referee is within the scope of

his authority to set forth a schedule for Defendants to file their motion to quash the Wildenstein

subpoena, and to hear that motion, and to stay discovery pending his decision on that motion.

That said, the Court reiterates to all concerned that it is imperative that this already 10-

year-old case proceed to completion as promptly as possible (see NYSCEF 2653 [December

21, 2023 Revised Discovery Order: "This is the final extension of the discovery schedule"]).

Going forward, the Court does not expect any further stays or extensions of the discovery

schedule.

While the Special Referee may set forth a briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to

preclude expert testimony, any such motion involving the preclusion of testimony at trial should

650646/2014 GOWEN, GEORGE W. vs. HELL Y NAHMAD GALLERY, INC. Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 038

3 of 5 [* 3] [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/04/2024 01:01 P~ INDEX NO. 650646/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2816 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/04/2024

be made to the Court. "[D]iscovery-related motions are properly before a judicial hearing officer

for resolution, but the statute does not provide authority to decide motions which do not involve

disclosure devices" (8A Carmody-Wait 2d § 61:3 [updated Nov 2024]; citing Flores v New York

City Haus.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Flores v. New York City Housing Authority
2017 NY Slip Op 4422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Pulver v. Pulver
2021 NY Slip Op 04727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Poster v. Poster
4 A.D.3d 145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Casale v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
75 A.D.3d 486 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Morton v. Brookhaven Memorial Hospital
308 A.D.2d 566 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 34289(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greason-v-nahmad-nysupctnewyork-2024.