Heritage Auctioneers & Galleries, Inc. v Christie's Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Heritage Auctioneers & Galleries, Inc. v Christie's Inc. 2017 NY Slip Op 30226(U) February 3, 2017 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651806/2014 Judge: Jeffrey K. Oing Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2017 04:33 PM 1] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159 INDEX NO. 651806/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 48 ------------~---------------------------x HERITAGE AUCTIONEERS & GALLERIES, INC. D/B/A HERITAGE AUCTIONS, Plaintiff, Index No.: 651806/2014 -againstMtn Seq. No.' 004 CHRISTIE'S INC.; MATTHEW RUBINGER, RACHEL KOFFSKY and CAITLIN DONOVAN, DECISION AND ORDER Defendants. -------------------------~--------------x JEFFREY K. OING, J.: Defendants, Christie's Inc. ("Christie's") , Matthew Rubinger, Rachel Koffsky and Caitlin Donovan, move for the following reliefs: for leave to renew and re argue, pursuant (-1) to CPLR 2221, this Court's ord~r dated.July 28, 2016, which granted plaintiff Heritage Auctioneers & Galleries Inc. d/b/a Heritage Auctions' ("Heritage Auctions") motion tq amend the complaint to add an additional plaintiff, Heritage Art & ' ' Collectibles, Inc. alternative, ("Heritage Art"), and (2) for an order, in the purs~ant to CPLR 3101, shifting the cost of additional discovery to plaintiffs in the event that th~ motion to renew and reargue is denied. Motion to Reargue To pr~vail on a ~otion for leave to reargue, the movant must show that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts or applicable law in deciding the prior motion (CPLR 2 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2017 04:33 PM 2] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2017 Page 2 of Index No.: 651806/2014 Mtn Seq. No. 004 222l[d]). INDEX NO. 651806/2014 4 In support of their motion to reargue, defendants take issue with the fact that the Court reached "its determination that 'certainly the amendment is not palpably i,mproper or insuffidie~t' without citation to any case law,u and that, in essence, the amended complaint added claims that failed as a matter of law (Def. Supp. Memo of Law, pp. 9-10). In making this argument, defendants erroneously treat the motion to amend as one to dismiss. No evidentiary showing of merit is required for a motion to amend a pieading; rather, the Court only needs to determine whether a proposed amended pleading is palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit (CPLR 3025[b]); (Higgins v City of New York, 144 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2016]; Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220 [2d Dept 2008]). Cont~ary to defendants' contention, the amended complaint was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and, importantly, ~efendants failed to establish that they were either prejudiced or surprised by the proposed amendment as the plaintiffs theory of the case did not change with the amendment. \' Accordingly, that branch of the motion seeking leave to reargue is denied. Motion to Renew To prevail on a motion for leave to renew, the movant must put f9rth "new facts not offered on the prior motion that would 3 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2017 04:33 PM 3] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159 INDEX NO. 651806/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2017 Page 3 of Index No.: 651806/2014 Mtn Seq. No. 004 4 _change the prior determination," along with a "reasonable '\ justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion" (Assevero v Rihan, 144 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2d Dept 2016] [citation and quotation omitted]). . I Here, in support of renewal, defendants' claim that "new facts adduced during the expert depositions should change the Court's'determinati6n that adding [Heritage Art] as a plaintiff would not be prejudicial to Defendants" (Def. Supp. Memo of Law, p. 9). As an initial matter, defendants made - and the Co~rt rejected -- a substantially similar prejudice argument on the prior motion. To the extent that expert depositions have further demonstrated the need for additional discovery, defendants fail to demonstrate that this could.not have been established on the prior motion (Morrison v Rosenberg, 278 AD2d 392 [2d Dept 2000]). ) In any event, ~s noted, supra, defendants fail to establish any !esulting prejudice. Accordingly, that branch of the motion seeking renewal is ' denied. Motion to Shift Costs That branch of defendants' motion to shift costs and expenses·- is denied. The well-established general rule is that "during the course of t~e action, each party should bear the expenses it incurs" in discovery (Clarendon Nat. Ins; Co. v 4 of 5 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/03/2017 04:33 PM 4] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 159 INDEX NO. 651806/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/03/2017 Page ·4 of Index No.: 651806/2,0,14 Mtn Seq. No. 004 Atlantic Risk Management, Inc., 59 AD3d 284 4 [1st Dept 200~]. Defendants have put forward no persuasive argument to deviate from that general rule. To the ~xtent that defendants argue that Heritage Auctions unreasonably delayed moving to amend, this assertion is not borne out by the record. It moved to amend shortly after defendants raised the issue of Heritage Art being a necessary party. Insofar as defendants suggest that Heritage Auctions' decision to wait until discovery was nearly complete to add Heritage Art as a party was based on strategic ,considerations, an equal argument can likewise be made that ! defendants were the ones who waited until the eleventh hour to raise this issue for their own strategic purposes. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants' motion for leave to renew and reargue, and, alternatively, to shift discovery costs and expenses, is denied in its entirety. This memorandum opinion constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: HON. 5 of 5 J.S.C.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.