Safflane Holdings Ltd. et al v. Gagosian Gallery, Inc.

Filing 33

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Charles Cowles, Gagosian Gallery, Inc. with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Safflane Holdings Ltd., Robert Wylde. (ft)

AARON RICHARD GOLUB, ESQUIRE, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
34 East 67th Street _3rd Floor
New York, New York 10065
ph: 212-838-4811
fx: 212-838-4869
ARG 6056
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

______________________________________ 11-CIV-1679
x
SAFFLANE HOLDINGS
ROBERT WYLDE,

(DLC)

LTD., and
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Plaintiffs,

-againstGAGOSIAN GALLERY,
CHARLES COWLES,

INC., and

Defendants.
______________________________________
Plaintiffs
WYLDE,

SAFFLANE

by their attorney,

for their Second Amended

X

HOLDINGS

LTD.

AARON RICHARD
Complaint,

GOLUB,

ESQUIRE,

PC, as and

allege as follows:

THE PARTIES
1.

Safflane

is a corporation

the laws of the Republic
business

in Nicosia,
2.

domiciliary

Wylde,

duly organized

of Cyprus, with its principal

under
place of

Cyprus.
an individual,

of the United

Kingdom

Ireland.

-1-

is a citizen

of Great Britain

and
and Northern

3.
a domestic

Defendant

business

Gagosian

corporation

Gallery,

organized

State of New York, and maintains
of business

at 980 Madison

4.
individual,

Defendant

Avenue,

("Gagosian")

is

under the laws of the

its principal

Charles

is a citizen

Inc.

office and place

New York, New York 10075.

Cowles

and domiciliary

("Cowles"), an
of the State of New

York.
JURISDICTION
5.
original

AND VENUE

This is a civil action over which this Court has

jurisdiction

under

the provisions

1332(a) (2), as there is complete
between

all plaintiffs,

dollars
6.

U.S.C.

§

is proper

1392(a) (1) because

this District.

Venue

1392(a) (2) because
omissions

in controversy

($75,000.00),

Venue

giving

diversity

§

of citizenship

on the one hand, and all defendants,

the other, and the amount
thousand

of 28 U.S.C.

exclusive

exceeds

both Gagosian

and costs.

pursuant

to 28

and Cowles reside in

is also proper pursuant

a substantial

seventy-five

of interest

in this District

on

to 28 U.S.C.

§

portion of the events and

rise to the claims asserted

herein occurred

in

this District.
GENERAL
7.
to Plaintiffs'
Art,

The allegations
claims

ALLEGATIONS
herein are made without

and defenses

et al. v. Safflane

Holdings,

-2-

in The Metropolitan

prejudice
Museum of

Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y.

Case

No. CV 11-3143
claims

and defenses may be, perforce,

allegations
A.

herein or may be asserted

inconsistent

8.

Gagosian,

established

("Mr. Gagosian"),

important

contemporary

three art galleries
and is principally
represented

is reputedly

has represented
approximately
information

in the world and maintains

by Mr. Gagosian.

is wholly owned

Gagosian

has

artist Mark Tansey since 2004 and

the world-renowned

artist Richard

2005, first on a non-exclusive
and belief,

G.

one of the most

in New York City.l Gagosian

the world-renowned

Artists

in 1979 by Lawrence

art galleries

managed

with the

in the alternative.

The Gagosian, and the World Renowned
Mark Tansey and Richard Prince

Gagosian

Such

(DLC) (the "Met v. Safflane action") .

commencing

Prince

since

basis and, upon

in 2008, on an exclusive

basis.
9.

Tansey was born

He is an American
monochromatic
hidden

postmodern

in 1949 in San Jose, California.
painter

works and elaborate

text, images and sYmbols.

for millions

of dollars privately

best known for

paintings
Tansey's

incorporating
works of art sell

and at auction.

Gagosian

or should be, familiar with every business

and creative

of Tansey's

represent

works necessary

to effectively

is,

aspect

him as his

1 Gagosian
maintains ten gallery locations throughout the world
at these locations: New York City (three locations); Beverly
Hills; London (two locations); Rome; Athens; Paris; Geneva; and
Hong Kong.

-3-

gallerist;

otherwise,

successfully

represent

10.
Panama,

is an American

art."

privately

be, familiar

represent

and creative

to effectively

Prince

salespersons,

dated

aspect of

represent

him as his

would not have been able to

Eye Test"

In or about late July 2009, Gagosian,

offered

representative

is, or should

since 2005.

("JG"), one of Gagosian's

invoice

Gagosian

The Sale of Tansey's "The Innocent
To Plaintiff Safflane By Gagosian
11.

Good

and at auction.

Gagosian

and calls it

works of art sell for millions

with every business

successfully
B.

Prince's

otherwise,

of

artist who bases his artistic work

works necessary

gallerist;

since 2004.

on the work of other artists

"appropriation
of dollars

Tansey

would not have been able to

Prince was born in 1949 in the Republic

predominantly

Prince's

Gagosian

by John

most senior and experienced

for sale to Safflane,

wylde,2 a painting
July 31, 2009

(1981)

described

(the "Tansey

by its authorized
in the sales

Invoice"),

as follows:

MARK TANSEY
The Innocent Eye Test, 1981
Oil on canvas
78 x 120 inches
198.1 x 304.8cm
(TANSE 1981.0001)

2 All allegations to Safflane herein, with respect to the
Tansey Painting, refer to Wylde acting on Safflane's behalf.
-4-

(the "Tansey Painting") .
12.

No sale of art was or is made by Gagosian without

the express authority
including
Painting

(as hereinafter

13.
the parties

referenced),

upon several

the following:

in numerous

through JG

(purchasing

commencing

actively

exclusively

represented

rendered

by Gagosian

for Plaintiffs'
14.

insurance
Between

date of the Tansey
warranted
substance,

and/or bye-mail,

were

through Gagosiani

sought works of art to

on Plaintiffs'

and
artworks

company.

Invoice,

expressly

inter

of Tansey, who was

art collectionsi

appraisals

approximately

to Safflane,

including,

and whose paintings

market

Plaintiffs'

written

with Gagosian

for a total of $5,100,000.00) i

for its part, specifically

improve and complement
Gagosian

in 2004, Plaintiffs

the works

and sold on the primary

Gagosian,

including without

nine works of art,

collected

commenced between

transactions

alia, one other Tansey painting,
Plaintiffs

decisions.

relationship

factors,

substantial

and the Prince

in which Mr. Gagosian

and final business

In 2004, a special

based

limitation

marketed

of Mr. Gagosian,

the sales of the Tansey Painting

made all significant

engaged

and supervision

July 20, 2009 through the

JG represented,

assured and

orally and in writing,

and/or

impliedly,

the following:

-5-

in sum and/or

by telephone,

in person

i.

That Gagosian could convey good and unencumbered
title to the Tansey Painting to Safflane;

ii.

That Cowles, a well-known New York City art
dealer, was rightfully in possession of the
Tansey Painting;

iii. That prior to Cowles having taken possession of
the Tansey Painting, such work had been located
and exhibited at the The Metropolitan Museum of
Art (the "Met"), located at 1000 Fifth Avenue,
New York City, but that the Tansey Painting had
been properly returned by Met to Cowles;
iv.

That Cowles had advised JG that Cowles had had a
disagreement, described to Safflane by JG as a
spat, with the Met's new director (allegedly Gary
Tinterow, who replaced the deceased renowned
curator william Lieberman as the Chairman of the
Met's Department of Nineteenth Century, Modern
and Contemporary Art), and as a result the Tansey
Painting was no longer going to be exhibited at
the Met;

v.

That Cowles asked for the Tansey Painting to be
returned to Cowles' possession.
The Met complied
and it was then evidently owned by Cowles. On or
about July 28, 2009, three days prior to the
purchase of the Tansey Painting, JG was
questioned by Safflane in a series of e-mails,3
as follows:
"On 28 Jul 2009, at 16:36, John Good
wrote:
Curator of 20th century arti now retired
and replaced by Gary Tinterow.
____________________ -7[JG's response to Wylde]
-----Original Message----From: Wylde Robert
(mailto:robert-wylde.net)
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:35 PM
To: John Good

3 The text of the e-mail exchange is reproduced verbatim, with
explanatory text concerning the identity of the sender and
recipient of each message within the exchange.
-6-

Subject: Re: promised gift of charles
cowles in honour of wiliam s
Lieberman

in honour of Wiliam S. Lieberman .....who
is was he?
---------------------7[Wylde's
e-mail to JG]
On 28 Ju12009,

at 16:32, John Good wrote:

Saw the listing for the loft but was
there seomthing [sic] else about the
promised gift?
---------------------7[JG'S
response

to Wylde]

-----Original Message----From: Wylde Robert
rmailto:robert-wylde.net)
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:38 PM
to: John Good
Subject: promised gift of charles clowes
in honour of wiliam s lieberman
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video
result&ct=res&cd=2&ur
1=http%3A%2F%2Frealestate.nytimes.com%2Fsales%2F
detail
%2F2331-0084%2F84Mercer-Street-New-YorkNY-I0012&ei=ZQFuSqnzMo_Q1AfFlbSlAg&Usg=AFQjCNFUwl
BXjI67Ell06n7M2AI_WXo5mw&sig2=iib4z9Sc8S0Aauokqqh28g"
-------------------7
[Wylde's e-mail to JG] i and
vi.

15.
Safflane:

That JG, in replying to the foregoing e-mail
exchange, recklessly implied, if not expressed,
that there was no title issue with respect to the
promised gift, that the Tansey Painting could be
freely sold and title could legally pass to
Safflane. JG omitted to state that Gagosian had
not performed proper due diligence with respect
to the Tansey Painting and specifically with
respect to Safflane's e-mail questions concerning
"the promised gift."
JG repeatedly

(i) the excellent

represented
provenance
-7-

and stressed

of the Tansey

to
Painting,

e.g.,

that it had previously

the most prestigious
value

museums

and/or desirabilitYi

statusi

and

inducements

17.

to Safflane

for Safflane

and warranties

and/or

implied representations,

that the Tansey

returned

Gagosian

were borne out by JG arranging

Streetr

Cowles'

to Cowles

at Cowles'

New York City.

JG viewed

the Tansey

Painting

had been

and could be sold to Safflane

gallery,

for Safflane

situated

to view the

at 84 Mercer

On or about July 27, 2009r

Painting,

by

which was hanging

Safflane

and

on a wall in

gallery.
18.

The factsr

circumstances

justifiable

assurances

made in New York City during the period

approximately

reliance

and reasons

Safflane's

Invoicer

the

Painting.

JG's express

Painting

as aforesaid

to consummate

properly

Tansey

iconic

of quality Tansey works of art in

JG's representations

of the Tansey

assurances

(ii) the Tansey Painting's

its

art market.

16.
were material

at the Met, one of

in the world, which enhanced

(iii) the scarcity

the secondary

purchase

been exhibited

relating

on JG's representations

July 20, 2009, through

to

and

commencing

on

the date of the Tansey

were as follows:
i.

During and/or shortly after the viewing at
Cowles' gallerYr JG again reassured and
represented to Safflane, in words and/or in sum
or substancer expressly and/or impliedly, that
the Tansey Painting was no longer being exhibited
at the Metr the Tansey Painting had been properly
-8-

returned to Cowles by the Met, Cowles then
evidently owned it since it was hanging in his
gallery, and the Tansey Painting could be sold to
Plaintiff Safflane by Gagosian;
ii.

JG was a senior salesperson at, and was acting on
behalf of, Gagosian, one of the most reputable
and renowned contemporary art dealers in the
world;

iii. Cowles was a well known New York City art dealer
who was allegedly retiring from the business and
was selling the Tansey Painting as part of the
winding down of his art dealership;
iv.

Safflane and/or Wylde had previously consummated
nine art transactions with Gagosian through JG,
with a total value in excess of $5,000,000.00,
and a special relationship developed, as set
forth above, between Safflane and JG, including
one of trust and confidence;

v.

Gagosian was uniquely situated in the art world
to research and to evaluate the truth or falsity
of Cowles' representations,
having dealt with the
Met in the past, knowing key Met personnel and
curators as well as knowing exactly how to source
and verify the relevant information from the Met
relating to the Tansey Painting (see paragraph 21
below).
When questioned via e-mail (which
expressly referenced the gift to the Met) as to
who William Lieberman was, JG recklessly failed
to reveal to Safflane that JG had not
investigated anything with respect to the stated
gift, which included the Met's longstanding loan
practices.
A proper and reasonable due diligence
investigation would have immediately revealed
that Cowles may not have had the right to sell
the Tansey Painting and that the Tansey Painting
may have been merely loaned and/or entrusted by
the Met to Cowles, a merchant who dealt with
goods of that kind. Such reckless act/omission
served as an additional fraudulent inducement;
and

vi.

JG's foregoing representations concerning
ownership and title of the Tansey Painting

-9-

were

rational, credible and there was no reason
Safflane to doubt any of the foregoing.
19.

Upon information

well in advance

Painting,
balance

of ownership

interest

in the Tansey

and commitment
Painting

and/or Cowles himself.

according

Painting

of the Tansey

Painting to Safflane,

that the

was to be

at or before the death of Ms. Jan Cowles

Cowles' mother)

allegedly

31% ownership

with a further agreement

gifted/donated

belief,

and belief, prior to 2009, and

of the sale of the Tansey

the Met had a purported

obtained

to documents
a partial

for

Upon information

(who is
and

on file at the Met, the Met

ownership

interest

in the Tansey

as follows:
i.

A Promised Gift for Individual Donor (signed on
the Met's gift form) executed by Cowles in 1988,
giving a one percent (1%) interest in the Tansey
Painting to the Met;

ii.

Offer of a Promised Gift (signed on the Met's
gift form) executed by Ms. Jan Cowles in 1993,
possibly promising a fifty percent (50%) interest
in the Tansey Painting to the Met;

iii. Offer of Partial Interest Gift (signed on the
Met's gift form) executed by Ms. Jan Cowles in
2003, giving a twenty percent (20%) interest in
the Tansey Painting to the Met; and
iv.

20.
diligence

Offer of Partial Interest Gift (signed on the
Met's gift form) executed by Ms. Jan Cowles in
2004, giving a ten percent (10%) interest in the
Tansey Painting to the Met.
Had Gagosian

performed

based on its own resources

information

uniquely

accessible

proper and customary
and public and private

and available
-10-

to Gagosian,

due

including but not limited to access to the Met's staff,
professional

relationships

information

published

annual reports

fiscal years 2003-2004

that:

have - Gagosian

interest

time Gagosian

paragraph

maintained

language

could not be sold to Gagosian

have been possible
21.

or Cowles' alleged
upon which Safflane
thereby damaged;

22.

above,

(iii) subject to
the Tansey Painting

and/or

Gagosian

under such

Safflane.

knew or should have

times that it did not have the right to
to Safflane

regarding

rights and control
justifiably

therewith

to Plaintiff

relied

in making

Safflane

and issued to Safflane

-11-

Gagosian's

ownership

of the Tansey Painting,
to its detriment
Gagosian

and was

acted with

such representations.

On July 31, 2009, Gagosian

Tansey Painting

(ii) Cowles

and that good and clear title may not

or, in the alternative,

reckless disregard

to maintain

to Safflane;
and

learned

well before the

and/or Safflane

In the alternative,

make representations

$2,500,000.00

Painting

to pass to Gagosian

known at all relevant

to which Safflane

and continued

the Tansey Painting;

circumstances

and through its

would have expeditiously

in the Tansey

8's exclusionary

questionable

- access

sold the Tansey Painting

may not have owned

and the Met,

inter alia, its annual reports for

and 2004-2005)

(i) the Met allegedly

an ownership

Gagosian

by the Met electronically

(including,

did not readily

between

conveyed

and sold the

for a purchase
the Tansey

price of

Invoice.

23.
Gagosian

The Tansey

to Safflane

Invoice purported

conditioned

upon payment

"Title does not pass until payment

the Tansey
24.

referenced

Painting

Safflane

Invoice.

in any manner whatsoever,
behalf of anyone
identified
purchased.

Safflane

purported

are the only parties

The Tansey

Invoice does not,

Gagosian

and no other party, for

or the amount of the original

price paid by Gagosian

to Cowles for the Tansey

Safflane paid Gagosian

directly

Painting

as stated

pursuant

to the Tansey

purchase

Painting.

for the full value of the Tansey

in the Tansey Invoice.
Invoice by having

Gagosian

performed

the Tansey Painting

to Safflane.
25.

On or about April 2, 2010, Gagosian's

formally advised
memorandum

Painting was

The Tansey Invoice does not indicate a

commission

delivered

was acting on

is specifically

from which the Tansey

paid only Gagosian,

the Tansey Painting.

to Safflane.

indicate that Gagosian

other that itself.

as the entity

5, 2009, and

was delivered

and Gagosian

in the Tansey

in full, stating:

in full has been received."

Payment in full was made on or about August
thereafter

to pass title from

Safflane

dated April

asserting

an alleged

Painting,

Gagosian

via an e-mail

incorporating

counsel
a

2, 2010, inter alia, that the Met was

31% ownership

interest

was not authorized

-12-

in the Tansey

in any way to sell the

Tansey

Painting and the sale of the Tansey Painting

extremely

embarrassing
26.

Gagosian

for Gagosian.

At all relevant

times, Safflane

was acting as a principal

in the sale of the Tansey
transaction

and/or

Painting

would be consummated

Gagosian.

state orally or in writing

the selling merchant

directly

between

behalf.

In point of fact, JG offered

for a sum in excess of $3,000,000.00

responded

with a counteroffer,

to Larry

[Gagosian]."

JG replied

of the Tansey

related

or agency

merchant-to-merchant
basis,

to the purchase

and belief,

agreement,

by

written

there was no

or otherwise,

and at no time did Cowles

words or in substance,

about the

Painting.

27. Upon information

Cowles' agent. Cowles

subsequently

that "I have to speak

other than Mr. Gagosian

price during the negotiations

Cowles and Gagosian,

Safflane

on

At no time did JG state that he had to

speak to Cowles or anyone

consignment

Safflane and

through JG or otherwise,

or about July 27, 2009, and when Plaintiff

Safflane

that

that it was acting as an agent for

Cowles or acting on Cowles'
to Safflane

believed

and that such sales

At no time did Gagosian,

the painting

was

or believe

ever state, in

or act as if, Gagosian

acted at all times with Gagosian
basis

in which both acted

between

was

on a

and/or art-dealer-to-art-dealer
independently,

-13-

guided by their own

self-interest,

nor could Gagosian

act as an agent,

otherwise,

for a principal

who ultimately

Plaintiffs

also incorporate

by reference

of paragraphs
C.

67 through

following

or

does not have title.
herein

the allegations

69 as if fully set forth herein.

The Sale of Prince's "Millionaire
To Plaintiff Wylde By Gagosian
28.

disclosed

On october

Nurse"

15, 2009, Gagosian

(2002)

showed Wylde the

painting:
Millionaire Nurse
RICHARD PRINCE (b. 1949)
Signed, titled and dated 2002 on the overlap
Ink jet print and acrylic on canvas
58 x 36 in. (147.3 x 91.4 em)

(the "Prince Painting") .
29.

On October

16, 2009, Gagosian

gave Wylde a fact

sheet on the Prince Painting.
30.

On Friday,

october

salesperson

JG, sold to Plaintiff

a purchase

23, 2009, Gagosian,

price of $2,200,000.00.
31.

dated

Gagosian

Friday, October

described
to Wylde

issued

to Plaintiff Wylde

above, memorializing

for

an invoice

the sale of the Prince

for the sum of $2,200,000.00

were closed.

Painting

23, 2009, on the same day as the sale

The invoice was sent to Wylde,
banks

Wylde the Prince

by its

(the "Prince Agreement").

who was in Europe,

Wylde was therefore

-14-

Painting

unable

after the

to initiate a

wire transfer,
opened

which Wylde

for business
32.

e-mailed

intended

to do when the banks re-

on the following

Monday.

Two days later, on Sunday, october

Wylde and advised him, inter alia, that the

owner of the Prince Painting
sale was accordingly
33.
to" Wylde

had withdrawn

Subsequently,

in the october

withdrawn

JG advised

wylde that he had "lied

25, 2009 e-mail and told Wylde that the
Painting had not

it from sale but that, rather,

offer,

i.e., an offer higher

$2,200,000.00

offer Gagosian

Such acts defeated

it from sale and the

cancelled.

truth was that the owner of the Prince

better

25, 2009, JG

pursuant
breached

Wylde's

to the Prince Agreement

had received

a

in amount than the

had already

and destroyed

Gagosian

accepted

from Wylde.

ability to perform

the Prince Agreement.
34.

business

practice

work of art
unlawfully

repudiates

of entering

and belief,

and/or rejects

to the financial

has a

into a binding agreement

seeks higher offer(s)
such higher

Gagosian

Gagosian

("Contract No. I") and thereafter,

upon receiving

offer,

Upon information

and accordingly

to sell a

Gagosian

for the same work of art, and

offer(s),
Contract

detriment

-15-

Gagosian unlawfully

No. 1 and accepts

a higher

of the initial purchaser.

TANSEY CLAIMS
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST GAGOSIAN
(Breach of Express Warranty of Title)
35.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as if fully set

forth herein.
36.
concerning

the Tansey

affirmation
relating

Gagosian's

representations

Painting

of fact or promise

to the Tansey

37.

made by the seller to the buyer

purchase

which were a material

part of

of the Tansey Painting.

At the time of the sale of the Tansey Painting

Safflane,

and prior

Safflane

to purchase

and warranted

and title thereto were an

Painting,

the basis of Safflane's

made in July 2009

to

thereto and as a part thereof, and to induce
the Tansey Painting,

to Safflane,

expressly

Gagosian

and/or

represented

impliedly,

inter

alia, that the Tansey Painting was no longer being exhibited at
the Met, had been returned
Safflane

with good,
38.

39.

Gagosian

purchased

representations

title to the Tansey

to Safflane

Painting

good, clear and unencumbered

Painting

relying on

and warranties.

an express warranty

could convey

title.

the Tansey

representations

Gagosian's

2009 constituted

and could be sold to

clear and unencumbered

Safflane

the aforementioned

to Cowles,

and warranties

and/or

guarantee

in July

that

good, clear and unencumbered

and/or

that Safflane

would receive

title to the Tansey Painting.
-16-

40.
damaged

As a result of the foregoing,

in a sum reflecting

the time of trial
million),

the value of the Tansey

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

Safflane

has been

Painting at

to be in excess of $6

thereon and, in addition

and incidental

damages proximately

thereto,

caused

thereby.
AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST COWLES
(Breach of Express Warranty of Title)
41.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

35-40 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
42.

To the extent

facts in connection

that Gagosian

with any defense

establishes

adequate

to the First Cause of

Action herein under which Cowles would be held vicariously
liable,

in whole or in part,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

for the acts, omissions,

(e.g., in the event it is legally
was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed

then any judgment

in connection

entered by the Court for Safflane

with the First Cause of Action

against both Gagosian

and/or

and Cowles,

exclusively

against

Cowles,

established

by Gagosian

jointly

should be entered

and/or

severally,

depending

upon the specific

in connection

with its defense.

-17-

or

facts

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST GAGOSIAN
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Title)
43.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as if fully set

forth herein.
44.
contained

The contract

to sell the Tansey

an implied warranty

good, and its transfer
was to be delivered

Painting

that the title conveyed

rightful,

to Safflane

was to be

and that the Tansey

Painting

free from any lien, encumbrance

or claims by third parties.
45.
constituted

Gagosian's

an implied warranty

could convey to Safflane
the Tansey Painting

46.

Safflane

the aforementioned
47.

that Safflane

purchased

warranties

in a sum reflecting

million),

that Gagosian
title to

would receive

good,

the Tansey

Painting

relying on

and/or guaranties.
of the foregoing,

Safflane

the value of the Tansey

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

and/or guarantee

title to the Tansey Painting.

As a result

the time of trial

in July 2009

good, clear and unencumbered

and/or

clear and unencumbered

damaged

representations

Painting

damages proximately

thereby.

-18-

at

to be in excess of $6

thereon and, in addition

and incidental

has been

thereto,

caused

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Title)
48.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat

and reallege

43-47 of this Second Amended

COWLES

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
49.

To the extent

facts in connection
Action

that Gagosian

with any defense

establishes

adequate

to the Third Cause of

herein under which Cowles would be held vicariously

liable,

in whole or in part,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed

with the Third

both Gagosian

and/or

(e.g., in the event it is legally

then any judgment

in connection
against

for the acts, omissions,

entered by the Court for Safflane
Cause of Action

and Cowles,

exclusively

against

Cowles,

established

by Gagosian

should be entered

jointly and/or severally,

depending

upon the specific

in connection

or

facts

with its defense.

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST GAGOSIAN
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)
50.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat

and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

as though

of

fully

set forth herein.
51. Gagosian's
contained

agreement

an implied warranty

alia, title to the Tansey
in the trade pursuant

to sell the Tansey

of merchantability

Painting

was to pass without

to the description

-19-

that,

in the Tansey

Painting
inter
objection
Invoice,

was fit for the ordinary purposes
Tansey

Painting

affirmations

for which goods such as the

are used and would conform to the promises

or

of fact made by Gagosian.

52.

Safflane purchased

the Tansey

Painting

relying on

such warranties.
53. As a result of the foregoing,
damaged

in a sum reflecting

the time of trial
million),

the value of the Tansey Painting

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

Safflane has been

thereon

and incidental

at

to be in excess of $6

and, in addition

damages proximately

thereto,

caused

thereby.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST COWLES
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)
54.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

50-53 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
55.

To the extent

facts in connection
Action
liable,

with any defense

establishes

adequate

to the Fifth Cause of

herein under which Cowles would be held vicariously
in whole or in part,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

for the acts, omissions,

was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed
entered by the Court for Safflane

with the Fifth Cause of Action

both Gagosian

and/or

(e.g., in the event it is legally

then any judgment

in connection
against

that Gagosian

and Cowles,
-20-

jointly

should be entered

and/or

severally,

or

exclusively

against

Cowles, depending

established

by Gagosian

in connection

upon the specific

facts

with its defense.

AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST GAGOSIAN
(Breach of Contract)
56.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat

and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though fully

set forth herein.
57.

On July 31, 2009, Safflane

into a contract,

for good and valuable

Gagosian

agreed

purchase

price of $2,500,000.00,

to Safflane
Tansey

to sell the Tansey

and Gagosian

consideration,

Painting

entered
in which

to Safflane

and Gagosian

for a

thereafter

issued

an invoice dated July 31, 2009, for the sale of the

Painting.
58.

Gagosian

On or about August

5, 2009, Safflane paid

the sum of $2,500,000.00,

thereby performing

its part

of the contract.
59.
neglecting
Safflane

Gagosian

to perform

breached

the contract

its obligations

good, clear and unencumbered

by failing and

by not conveying

to

title to the Tansey

Painting.
60.
damaged

As a result of the foregoing,

in a sum reflecting

the time of trial
million),

with

Safflane

has been

the value of the Tansey Painting

(estimated by Plaintiffs

legal interest

thereon

-21-

at

to be in excess of $6

and, in addition

thereto,

all consequential

and incidental

damages proximately

caused

thereby.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST
(Breach of Contract)
61.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

56-60 of this Second Amended

COWLES

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
62.

To the extent

facts in connection
Action

that Gagosian

with any defense

establishes

adequate

to the Seventh Cause of

herein under which Cowles would be held vicariously

liable, in whole

or in part, for the acts, omissions,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

(e.g., in the event it is legally
was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed

then any judgment

in connection

with the Seventh

against both Gagosian

entered by the Court for Safflane
Cause of Action

and Cowles,

exclusively

against

established

by Gagosian

jointly

Cowles, depending
in connection

paragraphs

Plaintiffs

and/or

severally,

or

facts

with its defense.
- AGAINST

repeat and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

should be entered

upon the specific

AS AND FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)
63.

and/or

GAGOSIAN

the allegations

Complaint

as though fully

set forth herein.
64.
allegedly

Gagosian

failed to inform Safflane

owned a 31% interest

in the Tansey

-22-

of

that the Met

Painting

and that

Gagosian

was not legally authorized

good, clear and unencumbered
65.

Gagosian

representations
Painting

to Safflane

title to the Tansey

to Safflane

concerning

title to the Tansey

were false, that such misrepresentations

of their falsity
deceiving

15, above) were made with knowledge

and inducing

above by purchasing
66.
paragraphs

The Tansey

part of one combined
from Cowles,

to actually

be taken as true
and justifiably

of Gagosian

rely

set forth

Painting.

of the fraud are alleged

27 of this Second Amended

further in the allegations
67.

to Safflane

and omissions

The specifics

the

that such material

the Tansey

11 through

to whether

concerning

Safflane

on the misrepresentations

the

Gagosian

and omissions

and caused and induced

disregard

misrepresentations

and intended

misrepresentations

to purchase

were true or false.

such fraudulent

Tansey Painting

Safflane

or were made with reckless

or not such representations
communicated

and omissions

and with the intent and for the purpose of

and defrauding

Tansey Painting

Painting.

knew or should have known that its

(see, inter alia, paragraph

acquired

to transfer

in the

Complaint,

and

that follow.
Painting

transaction

was acquired

through

purportedly

acting

which Gagosian
on behalf

(but in fact Cowles had no such authority),

-23-

by Gagosian

as

also

of Jan Cowles

the following

painting

by Roy Lichtenstein,

Jan Cowles' private

after a viewing

residence

of the painting

in New York City:

Girl in Mirror, 1964
Enamel on steel
42 x 42 in. (106 .7 x 106. 7 em)
ROY LICHTENSTEIN
(1923 -1997) (the "Lichtenstein
68.

At the time of the combined

some time prior thereto,

Cowles was in an impecunious

financial

knowledge

in the art world and which Gagosian

condition,

into and exploited

which was a matter

Mr. Gagosian used

of fact to ingratiate

himself with

to induce Cowles to show and sell the Lichtenstein

Painting,

and facilitate
by stating

wife Dorothy

a sales transaction

to Cowles:

Lichtenstein

time he contacted

Cowles,

cash was of sufficient
have the Lichtenstein
than its fair market
transaction,

Painting to

of the Lichtenstein

informed Mr. Gagosian

prior to the

that the Lichtenstein

Painting was

knew or had reason

to sell the Lichtenstein

Painting,

that the late Roy Lichtenstein's

owned by Jan Cowles and possibly
Gagosian

if not

of common

to gain entre and access to the Lichtenstein

Gagosian

and for

and Mr. Gagosian

to their advantage.

as a ruse a false statement
Cowles,

Painting") .

transaction,

desperate

tapped

in

for sale.

severity
Painting

and to obscure

and Mr.

to know that Cowles had no authority

Painting,

value.

Gagosian

and that his desperation

that he would permit
for an amount

Gagosian

substantially

In order to induce Cowles
the severe undervaluation

-24-

for
to

less

into this
of the

Lichtenstein
Tansey

Painting,

Gagosian

also purchased

from Cowles the

Painting.
69.

Gagosian

could acquire
Painting

had the motive

the Tansey

Painting

on unconscionably

reap a high profit margin
third-parties,
complete

and Cowles,

business

with Gagosian

the Tansey Painting,

and/or

seamy business
and/or

relationship

and/or

Cowles,

in the fraudulent

arising
Gagosian's

it to maintain

out of Gagosian's
misrepresentations

its fruitful

client

and Wylde.
of the foregoing,

Safflane

the value of the Tansey

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

doing any

and to avoid the risk of future

Instead,

permitted

of

would not have purchased

legal consequences

in a sum reflecting

million),

acquisition

dealings

to avoid any complicity

with Safflane

the time of trial

and internecine

and certainly

70. As a result
damaged

to

of the

Gagosian's

it would not have continued

practices.

omissions

and

In fact, had Safflane been aware of the

Gagosian

litigation

which were unaware

surrounding

illicit, nefarious

acts of Gagosian

terms, as aforesaid,

from the sale of those paintings

set of circumstances

unlawful,

fraud, as it

and/or the Lichtenstein

lopsided

such as Safflane,

of these art works.

to commit

thereon

and incidental

-25-

Painting at

to be in excess of $6

and, in addition

damages proximately

thereby.

has been

thereto,

caused

AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)
71.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat

- AGAINST

and reallege

63-68 of this Second Amended

COWLES

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
72. To the extent that Gagosian
facts in connection
Action
liable,

with any defense

adequate

to the Ninth Cause of

herein under which cowles would be held vicariously
in whole or in part,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

for the acts, omissions,

was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed
entered

by the Court for Safflane

with the Ninth Cause of Action

both Gagosian

and Cowles,

exclusively

against

established

by Gagosian

Cowles,

should be entered

jointly and/or severally,

depending

upon the specific

in connection

paragraphs

or

with its defense.

AS AND FOR A ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST
(Negligent Misrepresentation)
73.

and/or

(e.g., in the event it is legally

then any judgment

in connection
against

establishes

Plaintiffs

repeat

and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

facts

GAGOSIAN

the allegations

Complaint

as though fully

set forth herein.
74.
confidence
above

Gagosian

is and was in a special position

and trust with Plaintiffs,

in paragraphs

and specialized

13 and 18.

expertise

has and had a unique

in the art market,

-26-

of

as more fully set forth

Gagosian

of

including

relationships
renowned

with museums

artists

such as the Met and with world-

such as Tansey,

as more fully set forth

hereinabove.
75.
correct

Gagosian

information
76.

Gagosian

made reckless,

to Plaintiffs

negligent

(see paragraph

Such representations

Painting

Safflane

of purchasing

to be desired by
the Tansey

for the sum of $2,500,000.00.
77. When Gagosian

title issues related
discharge

was made aware of the possible

to the Tansey

its duty of reasonable

by not making proper

Painting,

care

inquiry to confirm

ownership

of the Tansey Painting

paragraph

14), and Plaintiff

Gagosian1s

misleading

detriment.

Gagosian
Safflane

any other party

Gagosian

(see paragraph

the truth or falsity of ee's statements

Plaintiff

and inaccurate.

were known by the Gagosian
for the purpose

and false

14, above), which

knew or should have known were untrue

Plaintiff

and

to the Plaintiffs.

Gagosian

representations

had a duty to impart accurate

and incomplete

related

reasonably

to the title and
(including

relied upon

representations

was also negligent

14, above)

ee's alleged rights or

as set forth above

Safflane

failed to

to its

by failing to inform

that it took no steps to contact the Met or

to confirm ee's alleged

Painting.

-27-

rights

to the Tansey

78.
purchase

Plaintiff

Safflane

the Tansey painting,

much less consummate

had it known title and ownership
79.
omissions

Gagosian

proximately

would not have offered

violated

its duty and its actions and/or

caused Plaintiff

in a sum reflecting

the time of trial
million),

Safflane

damage.

Safflane has been

the value of the Tansey Painting at

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

its purchase,

to the work were an issue.

80. As a result of the foregoing,
damaged

to

to be in excess of $6

thereon and, in addition

and incidental

damages

thereto,

proximately

caused

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST
(Negligent Misrepresentation)

COWLES

thereby.

81.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

71-78 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
82.

To the extent

facts in connection
Action
liable,

with any defense

establishes

to the Eleventh

adequate

Cause of

herein under which Cowles would be held vicariously
in whole

or in part,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

for the acts, omissions,

was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed
entered by the Court for Safflane

with the Eleventh

against

and/or

(e.g., in the event it is legally

then any judgment

in connection
entered

that Gagosian

both Gagosian

Cause of Action

and Cowles,
-28-

should be

jointly

and/or

severally,
specific

or exclusively

against

facts established

Cowles, depending

by Gagosian

upon the

in connection

with its

defense.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST GAGOSIAN
(Violation of New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 13.03)
83.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though fully

set forth herein.
84.
Affairs

Law

Gagosian

and/or

injure Safflane,

Tansey

Painting

payment

intending

attesting

Painting

to Safflane
paragraph

when,

in fact, good, clear

because,

Invoice

in

is false and Gagosian

violated

could not pass title to the Tansey Painting
upon information

8's exclusionary

language

title to the Tansey

Painting.

title to the Tansey

Painting

and belief

above),

Gagosian

never had

could not pass to Plaintiff

when it made payment

in a sum reflecting

(subject to the

Good, clear and unencumbered

to Gagosian.

86. As a result of the foregoing,
damaged

after payment

by Gagosian.

The Tansey

the law as Gagosian

for the

would pass to Safflane when

title did not pass to Safflane

full had been received

deceive

that title and accompanying

in full had been received,

85.

to defraud,

made and issued an invoice

of the Tansey

and unencumbered

Safflane

the New York Arts and Cultural

13.03 as Gagosian,

§

authenticity

violated

Safflane

has been

the value of the Tansey Painting
-29-

at

the time of trial
million),

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

to be in excess of $6

thereon and, in addition

and incidental

damages proximately

thereto,

caused

thereby.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AGAINST COWLES
(Violation of New York Arts and cultural Affairs Law § 13.03)
87.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

81-84 of this Second Amended

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
88. To the extent
facts in connection

that Gagosian

with any defense

establishes

adequate

to the Thirteenth

Cause of

Action herein under which Cowles would be held vicariously
liable,

in whole or in part,

statements

of Gagosian

determined

that Gagosian

principal),

entered

severally,
specific

was an agent for Cowles as a disclosed
entered by the Court for Safflane

with the Thirteenth

against

and/or

(e.g., in the event it is legally

then any judgment

in connection

for the acts, omissions,

both Gagosian

or exclusively

facts established

Cause of Action

and Cowles,

against

Cowles,

by Gagosian

defense.

-30-

should be

jointly and/or
depending

in connection

upon the
with its

AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION-AGAINST
(Unjust Enrichment)
89.
paragraphs

Plaintiffs

repeat and reallege

1-27 of this Second Amended

GAGOSIAN

the allegations

Complaint

as though

of

fully

set forth herein.
90. As a result of Gagosian's
Painting

to Safflane,

Gagosian

91. Gagosian's
Safflane's

sale of the Tansey

was unjustly

unjust

enriched.

enrichment

was at Plaintiff

expense.
92. The circumstances

conscience

require Gagosian

Plaintiff

are such that equity and good

to make full restitution

Safflane.
93. As a result of the foregoing,

has been damaged
Painting

in a sum reflecting

at the time of trial

excess of $6 million),
addition

to

thereto,

proximately

(estimated by Plaintiffs

with legal interest

all consequential

Safflane

the value of the Tansey
to be in

thereon and, in

and incidental

damages

caused thereby.

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
94.
paragraphs

Plaintiff

Plaintiffs

repeat

- AGAINST

and reallege

87-91 of this Second Amended

COWLES

the allegations

Complaint

of

as though

fully set forth herein.
95. To the extent
facts in connection

that Gagosian

with any defense

-31-

establishes

to the Fifteenth

adequate
Cause of

Action herein under which it were established
unjustly

enriched

Painting

to Safflane

vicariously
omissions,

as a result of Gagosian's

liable,
and/or

sale of the Tansey

and/or under which Cowles would be held
in whole or in part,

statements

for the acts,

of Gagosian

is legally determined

that Gagosian

disclosed

principal),

then any judgment

Safflane

in connection

(e.g., in the event it

was an agent for Cowles as a
entered by the Court for

with the Fifteenth

be entered

against

severally,

or exclusively

specific

that Cowles was

both Gagosian

facts established

against

Cause of Action

should

and Cowles, jointly and/or
Cowles,

by Gagosian

depending

upon the

in connection

with its

defense.
PRINCE

CLAIMS

- BY WYLDE ONLY AGAINST

GAGOSIAN

ONLY

AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Repudiation and/or Breach of Contract)
96.
paragraphs
though

Plaintiffs

the allegations

1-10 and 28-34 of this Second Amended

Complaint

of

as

fully set forth herein.
97.

On October

into an agreement

98.

23, 2009, Wylde and Gagosian

for Wylde to purchase

the sum of $2,200,000.00,

willing

repeat and reallege

Wylde was ready,

the terms and conditions

on his part to be performed,
price

for

as set forth above.

and able to perform

of the purchase

the Prince Painting

At all times herein mentioned,

Prince Agreement

entered

therefore

in full.

-32-

of the

including,

payment

99. On October
cause, Gagosian
Agreement
deliver

unlawfully

by unlawfully

the Prince

and received
confirmed

Gagosian

Painting

a higher

counsel's

accepted

that Gagosian

agreement

Gagosian

such higher

the precise
interest

amount

thereon

consequential

to be proven

offer
into a

Painting.
Wylde has been

Dollars

($1,000,000.00),

at trial, with appropriate

and in addition

and incidental

26, 2009,

buyer who made a

and wylde had entered

One Million

on May 13,

october

for the sale of the Prince

in a sum exceeding

As

in court statement

to another

to

had sought

Painting.

100. As a result of the foregoing,
damaged

the Prince

failing and refusing

Cote, on Monday,

sold the Prince Painting

notwithstanding

and breached

offer for the Prince

Gagosian

legal reason or

to Wylde because

the Hon. Denise

higher offer.

binding

repudiated

cancelling,

by Gagosian's

2011 before

25, 2009, without

thereto,

damages

including

proximately

legal

all

related

thereto.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Deceptive and Misleading Business Practices-GBL § 349 et seq.)
101. Plaintiffs
paragraphs
though

repeat

and reallege

the allegations

1-10 and 28-34 of this Second Amended

Complaint

of

as

fully set forth herein.
102. Gagosian

has engaged

in violation

in deceptive

business

practices

sections

349 et seq. as set forth above

and misleading

of New York General Business

-33-

in paragraph

35.

Law

103. Gagosian

is an art gallery

open to the public at

large and sells works of art to the public at large, and has
engaged

in deceptive

and dishonest

impact on the public

at large, including

New York City and throughout
104. Gagosian
affecting
business

consumers
practice

repudiating
detriment

at large.

collectors

in consumer

Gagosian,

of entering

unlawfully

were and are deceptive

agreements

seeking

purchasers,

in material

and misleading

One Million

amount to be proven

utilizes

respects

damages

business

agreements

to the

tactics which

and Plaintiffs

have

a cause of action

practices

exists against

and Wylde has been damaged

Dollars

($1,000,000.00),

at trial, with appropriate

thereon and in addition
incidental

to sell

thereby.

in favor of Wylde,

exceeding

a

and/or accepting

the prior binding

105. As a result of the foregoing,

Gagosian

related activity

by maintaining

into binding

rejecting

of the original

for deceptive

of art in

for the same works of art and unlawfully

and/or

been injured

that has a broad

the world.

has engaged

works of art and thereafter
higher offer(s)

misconduct

thereto,

proximately

including

related

-34-

in a sum

the precise
legal interest

all consequential

thereto.

and

AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Unjust Enrichment)
106. Plaintiffs
paragraphs
though

repeat and reallege

the allegations

1-10 and 28-34 of this Second Amended

Complaint

of

as

fully set forth herein.
107. As a result of Gagosian's

sale of the Prince Painting
offer, Gagosian

to Wylde

was unjustly

108. Gagosian's

cancellation

of the

in order to accept a better

enriched.

unjust

enrichment

was at Wylde's

expense.
109. The circumstances
conscience

require Gagosian

are such that equity and good

to make full restitution

110. As a result of the foregoing,
been damaged

in a sum exceeding

($100,000.00),
appropriate
including
related

the precise

One Hundred

amount

legal interest

Plaintiff
Thousand

to be proven

and incidental

Wylde has

Dollars

at trial, with

thereon and in addition

all consequential

to Wylde.

thereto,

damages

proximately

thereto.
AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of the Implied Covenant
Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
111. Plaintiffs

paragraphs
though

repeat

and reallege

the allegations

1-10 and 28-34 of this Second Amended

Complaint

of

as

fully set forth herein.
112. By soliciting

Gagosian

accepted,

Gagosian

and exploiting
defeated
-35-

a higher

and destroyed

offer which

Wylde's

right

to receive

the fruits of its bargain,

including but not limited

to, the value of the Prince Agreement,
Wylde's

reasonable
113.

damaged

interest

As a result of the foregoing,

amount

thereon

consequential

with

expectations.

in a sum exceeding

the precise

and interfered

wylde has been

One Million Dollars

to be proven

at trial, with appropriate

and in addition

and incidental

($1,000,000.00),

thereto,

damages

legal

including all

proximately

related

thereto.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Specific Performance)
114. Plaintiffs
paragraphs
though

repeat

and reallege

the allegations

1-10 and 28-34 of this Second Amended

Complaint

of

as

fully set forth herein.
115. Gagosian

interest

has refused

to acknowledge

legal

in the Prince Painting.
116. Plaintiffs

have no adequate

remedy at law.

117. As a result of the foregoing,
entitled

Wylde's

to a judgment

the Prince Agreement

of specific

performance

for the Prince Painting.

-36-

Plaintiff

Wylde

by Gagosian

on

is

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs

demand a jury for all claims stated herein.

WHEREFORE,
a.

Painting

Million

Dollars

Safflane,

judgment:

($6,000,000.00),

thereto,

Million

Dollars

($6,000,000.00),

thereto,

damages

proximately

Million

Dollars

amount to be proven

and incidental

the precise

in

the value of the
Six

amount to be proven

thereon and in
and incidental

thereto;

On the Third Cause of Action,
Safflane,

damages

at the time of trial,
($6,000,000.00),

at trial, with appropriate

cowles

in a sum exceeding

all consequential

related

against

reflecting

legal interest

including

favor of Plaintiff
Painting

damages

at the time of trial,

addition

Tansey

Cause of Action,

Safflane,

at trial, with appropriate

c.

Six

thereon and in

all consequential

On the Second

Painting

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

the precise

in

related thereto;

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

against Gagosian

reflecting

legal interest

including

damages proximately
b.

damages

at the time of trial,

at trial, with appropriate
addition

demand

On the First Cause of Action,

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

Plaintiffs

reflecting

legal interest

in

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

the precise

-37-

against Gagosian

amount

Six

to be proven

thereon and in

addition

theretor

including

damages proximately
d.

related

Painting

Million

Dollars

at trialr

($6rOOOrOOO.00)

Million

Dollars

addition

f.

Dollars

at trialr
addition
damages

reflecting

legal interest

amount to be proven

and incidental

related theretoj

Safflaner

($6rOOOrOOO.00)

with appropriate

proximately

Six

thereon and in

all consequential

damages

at the time of trialr

theretor

in

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

On the Sixth Cause of Actionr

Painting

Million

against Gagosian

r
the precise

including

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

damages

($6rOOOrOOO.00)

proximately

and incidental

theretoj

at the time of trialr

theretor

damages

thereon and in

all consequential

Safflaner

with appropriate

Six

amount to be proven

On the Fifth Cause of Actionr

Painting

in

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

legal interest

related

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

against Cowles

reflecting

r
the precise

including

damages proximately
e.

damages

at the time of trialr

theretor

at trialr

theretoj

Safflaner

with appropriate

addition

and incidental

On the Fourth Cause of Actionr

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

all consequential

including
related

reflecting

legal interest

-38-

Six

amount to be proven

thereon and in

all consequential

in

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

r
the precise

theretoj

against Cowles

and incidental

g.

On the Seventh

in favor of Plaintiff
the Tansey Painting
Million

Dollars

Safflane,

($6,000,000.00),

addition

thereto,

damages

proximately

Million

Dollars

related

Million

Dollars

and in

against

Cowles in

the value of the

damages

($6,000,000.00),

proximately

to be proven

and incidental

related

Safflane,

Gagosian

the precise

in

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

legal interest

including

against

reflecting

amount

Six

to be proven

thereon and in

all consequential

and incidental

thereto;

On the Tenth Cause of Action,

favor of Plaintiff

amount

Six

thereon and in

Cause of Action,

at the time of trial,

damages

Painting

to be proven

thereto;

Safflane,

thereto,

Tansey

the precise

all consequential

On the Ninth

addition

Six

and incidental

reflecting

legal interest

related

at trial, with appropriate

j.

damages

including

favor of Plaintiff
Painting

thereon

Cause of Action,

($6,000,000.00),

damages proximately

Tansey

amount

at the time of trial, in a sum exceeding

thereto,

i.

the value of

thereto;

Safflane,

at trial, with appropriate
addition

the precise

all consequential

On the Eighth

Painting

reflecting

legal interest

including

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

damages

against Gagosian

at the time of trial, in a sum exceeding

at trial, with appropriate

h.

Cause of Action,

damages

at the time of trial,

-39-

against

reflecting

Cowles in

the value of the

in a sum exceeding

Six

Million

Dollars

at trial

with appropriate

l

addition
damages

thereto

proximately

Dollars

at trial
addition
damages

l

Painting

Million

Dollars

at trial
addition
damages

Safflane

m.
Gagosian

amount

in favor of Plaintiff

to be proven

Six

to be proven

thereon and in
and incidental

theretoi

On the Thirteenth

Painting

Six Million

the value of the

amount

all consequential

related

Cowles in

in a sum exceeding

legal interest

including

against

reflecting

1 the precise

($6/0001000.00)

value of the Tansey
exceeding

damages

l

proximately

and incidental

l

l

1

thereon and in

Cause of Action

at the time of trial

thereto

Six

theretoi

with appropriate

l

the value of

amount to be proven

all consequential

On the Twelfth

favor of Plaintiff
Tansey

legal interest

Gagosian

in a sum exceeding

1 the precise

related

against

reflecting

at the time of trial

proximately
1.

damages

l

including

1

and incidental

l

($6/0001000.00)

thereto

thereon and in

Cause of Action

Safflane

with appropriate

l

to be proven

theretoi

On the Eleventh

the Tansey Painting

amount

all consequential

related

in favor of Plaintiff

Million

legal interest

including

l

k.

1 the precise

($6/0001000.00)

Cause of Action

against

l

Safflane

l

damages reflecting

at the time of trial

l

Dollars

at trial

l

($6/0001000.00)

with appropriate

-40-

the

in a sum

1 the precise

legal interest

thereon

and in addition

incidental

damages proximately
n.

the Tansey

Painting

Dollars

thereto,

damages

related

thereon and in
and incidental

Cause of Action,
Safflane,

incidental

damages reflecting

($6,000,000.00),

the Tansey

Painting

Dollars

Safflane,

damages

thereto,

including

damages

proximately

related

legal interest

all consequential

legal interest

and

Cowles

the value of

in a sum exceeding
amount

Six

to be proven

thereon and in

all consequential

-41-

against

reflecting

the precise

thereto;

in a sum

theretoj

at the time of trial,

at trial, with appropriate

the

the precise

Cause of Action,

($6,000,000.00),

addition

including

related

On the Sixteenth

in favor of Plaintiff

Million

thereto,

damages proximately
p.

against

at the time of trial,

Dollars

and in addition

Six

amount to be proven

to be proven at trial, with appropriate

thereon

the value of

in a sum exceeding

the precise

On the Fifteenth

Six Million

Cowles

theretoj

in favor of Plaintiff

exceeding

against

reflecting

all consequential

of the Tansey Painting

amount

damages

legal interest

including

and

theretoj

at the time of trial,

proximately
o.

all consequential

Cause of Action,

($6,000,000.00),

addition

value

related

Safflane,

at trial, with appropriate

Gagosian

including

On the Fourteenth

in favor of Plaintiff

Million

thereto,

and incidental

q.
Gagosian

On the Seventeenth

in favor of Plaintiff

One Hundred

Thousand

to be proven

including

proximately

On the Eighteenth

Dollars

thereto,

damages proximately
s.
Gagosian

thereto,

damages

t.
Gagosian

including
related

to be proven

incidental

damages

damages

against

in a sum exceeding

the precise amount to be

legal interest

all consequential

thereon and in

and incidental

theretoj

Dollars

thereto,

amount to be

and incidental

Cause of Action,

Cause of Action,
Wylde,

damages

($100,000.00),

at trial, with appropriate

and in addition

in a sum exceeding

the precise

Wylde,

On the Twentieth

Thousand

against

theretoj

in favor of Plaintiff

One Hundred

damages

($1,000,000.00),

proximately

and

theretoj

all consequential

at trial, with appropriate

addition

amount

legal interest thereon and in

On the Nineteenth

Dollars

the precise

Cause of Action,

Wylde,

in favor of Plaintiff

One Million
proven

related

in a sum exceeding

all consequential

($1,000,000.00),

including

against

legal interest thereon

related

at trial, with appropriate

addition

damages

($100,000.00),

in favor of Plaintiff

One Million
proven

thereto,

damages
r.

Gagosian

Wylde,

at trial, with appropriate

and in addition
incidental

Dollars

Cause of Action,

including

proximately

in a sum exceeding

the precise

legal interest

all consequential

related

-42-

against

theretoj

amount
thereon

and

u.

Judgment

on the Twenty-First

Cause of Action:

i.

ii.

v.

ordering and decreeing that Gagosian
specifically perform the contract concerning
the Prince Painting; and
adjudging that Plaintiff Wylde is the true
owner of the Prince Painting; and

Granting

to the Plaintiffs

such other and further

relief as this Court shall deem just and proper,
the costs and disbursements
attorneys'

Dated:

of this action,

together with

and reasonable

fees.

New York, New York
July 15, 2011
Respectfully

submitted,

AARON RICHARD GOLUB, ESQ., P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ft~5~~
BY: s/Nehemiah S. Glanc
34 East 67th Street - 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10065
ph: 212-838-4811
fx: 212-838-4869
NSG 7264

-43-