Heather James, LLC v. Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heather James, LLC v. Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp.

140 A.D.3d 510, 34 N.Y.S.3d 423

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 16, 2016

Docket1255 651226/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 510 (Heather James, LLC v. Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heather James, LLC v. Day & Meyer, Murray & Young Corp., 140 A.D.3d 510, 34 N.Y.S.3d 423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered September 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment limiting its liability to the damages specified in the parties’ contracts, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Heather James Jackson, LLC, the owner of an art gallery in Wyoming, facilitated for a client the purchase of 10 original framed Marilyn Monroe silk-screen prints created by Andy Warhol. Included in the collection, and making it unique, was the box that Warhol himself had selected and labeled to sell the prints in. Defendant, which specializes in storing and *511 shipping rare fine art, was to receive the collection from Sotheby’s and ship it to the Wyoming gallery. In an email notifying defendant that the collection would be arriving the next day, an employee of plaintiff advised that the prints were to be shipped to Wyoming, “along with the original box the prints came in.” However, the prints arrived in Wyoming without the original box.

Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion that gross negligence on defendant’s part would deprive defendant of the benefit of the contractual limitation on its liability, the only circumstance that would render the contractual limitation inapplicable in this case is defendant’s conversion of the original box (see UCC 7-204 [2], now 7-204 [b]; I.C.C. Metals v Municipal Warehouse Co., 50 NY2d 657 [1980]). Although defendant proffered a non-conversion explanation for its failure to return the box to plaintiff, the evidence it submitted fails to demonstrate the truth of that explanation as a matter of law (see I.C.C. Metals, 50 NY2d 657).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered September 21, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment limiting its liability to the damages specified in the parties’ contracts, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Heather James Jackson, LLC, the owner of an art gallery in Wyoming, facilitated for a client the purchase of 10 original framed Marilyn Monroe silk-screen prints created by Andy Warhol. Included in the collection, and making it unique, was the box that Warhol himself had selected and labeled to sell the prints in. Defendant, which specializes in storing and *511 shipping rare fine art, was to receive the collection from Sotheby’s and ship it to the Wyoming gallery. In an email notifying defendant that the collection would be arriving the next day, an employee of plaintiff advised that the prints were to be shipped to Wyoming, “along with the original box the prints came in.” However, the prints arrived in Wyoming without the original box.

Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion that gross negligence on defendant’s part would deprive defendant of the benefit of the contractual limitation on its liability, the only circumstance that would render the contractual limitation inapplicable in this case is defendant’s conversion of the original box (see UCC 7-204 [2], now 7-204 [b]; I.C.C. Metals v Municipal Warehouse Co., 50 NY2d 657 [1980]). Although defendant proffered a non-conversion explanation for its failure to return the box to plaintiff, the evidence it submitted fails to demonstrate the truth of that explanation as a matter of law (see I.C.C. Metals, 50 NY2d 657).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 510, 34 N.Y.S.3d 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heather-james-llc-v-day-meyer-murray-young-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack