Sandran Waran v Christie's

7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's

1/8

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK----------------------------------------------------------XSANDRAN WARAN,

Plaintiff,- against -

CHRISTIESINC.,Defendant.

----------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff, Sandran Waran, by his attorneys, Oved & Oved LLP, compl

Defendant Christies Inc.s (Defendant or Christies), alleges, upon informati

as follows:

SUMMARY OF ACTION

1. This lawsuit seeks monetary damages stemming from the fraud t

perpetrated on Plaintiff when Christies guaranteed the authenticity and provenan

pieces of East Indian art, and thereby induced Plaintiff to purchase same in 2005 a

then subsequently refused to resell same for Plaintiff claiming that the aut

provenance of those same pieces could not be guaranteed by Christies.1

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident with an address at 8 Reed Road,

New Jersey 07960.

3. Defendant is a corporation duly organized and existing under and pu

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT

Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 1


2/8

4. At all times relevant hereto, Christies operated one of the world

best-known auction houses.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Christies conducted business thro

authorized agents, representatives, officers, directors, shareholders, managers

servants and workmen, all of whom acted within the scope of their employment, a

authority.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant t

1332 because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states and th

controversy exceeds the statutory threshold of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars

exclusive of interest and costs.

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and

Defendant has been and continues to provide services to customers residing in the d

8.

The cause of action set forth in this Complaint arises from

transaction of business in this District, including but not limited to advertising

marketing, auctioning and sale of goods to residents of this District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff Acquires the Blackstone Stele From Christie's

9. In or about March 2005, Christies published an auction catalog en

d S h A i A l di d d C di A ( h



3/8

works contained in the March 2005 Catalog of any art described in headings print

CASE TYPE.

11. In or about March 2005, Plaintiff obtained a copy of the March 2005

12. Included in the March 2005 Catalog was a piece (the Blackston

bore the following UPPER CASE TYPE heading:

PROPERTY OF A BOSTON COLLECTION[Lot] 57

A BLACKSTONE STELE OF VISHNU ON GARUDA

NORTHEASTERN INDIA, PALA PERIOD, 12THCENTURY

* * *

PROVENANCE:Acquired in 1993

13.

Thus, pursuant to Christies March 2005 Catalog and its Condit

Christies represented that the Blackstone Stele was, without qualification, an au

from Northeastern India, from the Pala Period, 12th Century, and that its provenan

was acquired by a Boston Collection in 1993.

14. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Christiesunqualified representati

the Blackstone Steles authenticity and provenance as well as Christies renowned

quality, authenticity and provenance, and placed the winning bid on the Blackston

Thousand Seven Hundred Four Dollars ($40,704.00) (including sales tax).

15. Plaintiff promptly thereafter paid the sum of Thirty-Eight Th

Thousand Seven Hundred Four Dollars ($40,704.00) to Christies and took poss



4/8

B. Plaintiff Acquired the Sandstone Figure From Christies

17.

In or about March 2007, Christies published another auction ca

Indian and Southeast Asian Art, Including Modern and Contemporary Indian Art

2007 Catalog).

18. Pursuant to the Conditions of Sale contained in the March 2

Christies warranted, without qualification, the authorship, authenticity and prov

works contained in the March 2007 Catalog of any art described in headings print

CASE TYPE.

19. The March 2007 Catalog also explained that when the dates, period

piece (its attributes) are contained below the heading of the description in

lettersthen Christies is of the opinion [that] the piece is of the date or period [list

20. In or about March 2007, Plaintiff obtained a copy of the March 2007

21. Included in the March 2007 Catalog was a piece (the Sandstone

bore the following UPPER CASE TYPE heading and the following attributes in

letters:

PROPERTY OF A PRIVATE ENGLISH COLLECTION[Lot] 270

A SANDSTONE FIGURE OF UMA

KHMER, ANGKOR PERIOD, BAPHUON STYLE, 11TH

CENTURY

* * *

PROVENANCE:English Collection, before 1975



5/8

provenance was that it was acquired by a private English collection before 1975.

23.

Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Christiesunqualified representati

the Sandstone Figures authenticity and provenance as well as Christies renowned

quality, authenticity and provenance, and placed the winning bid on the Sand

Seventy Thousand and Six Hundred-Twenty Dollars ($70,620.00) (including sales t

24.

Plaintiff promptly thereafter paid the sum of Seventy Thousand and

Twenty Dollars ($70,620.00) to Christies and took possession of the Sandstone

Plaintiff has possessed without interruption to this day (collectively, the Blackstone

Sandstone Figure are referred to herein as the Pieces).

25.

But for Christies representations regarding authenticity and

Plaintiff would not have purchased the Sandstone Figure.

C. Plaintiff Contacts Christies to Re-Sell the Pieces

26. In or around July 2013, Plaintiff contacted Christies requesting

Pieces to Christies.

27. Christiespromptly responded to Plaintiff and represented that it w

Plaintiffs artwork at its March 2014 auction.

28. In furtherance thereof, Plaintiff delivered the pieces to Christies.

29. From that time to February 24, 2014, in response to Plaintiffs

consistent inquiries as to when the Pieces would be included in one of Christie

Christies repeatedly reassured Plaintiff that Christies intended to include the



6/8

possession and forestalling the instant litigation, on or about February 24, 20

advised Plaintiff that it would be unable to include the Pieces in its upcoming auct

could not yet verify their provenancethe same provenance Christies had represe

qualification, was verified as authentic and guaranteed in the March 2005 Catalo

2007 Catalog, respectively.

31.

To further attempt to forestall this litigationand surreptitiously r

statute of limitations, Christies represented that it stand[s] behind the works itsel

Christies name is synonymous with quality, authenticity and provenance an

assured Plaintiff that Christieswas planning to re-offer the Pieces at later auctions.

32.

Indeed, in or about July 2014, Christies informed Plaintiff that we

to offer the [the Pieces] in September, [we] just need to finalize on Monday. P

relied on Christiesrepresentations.

33. Christies continued to induce Plaintiff to forestall this and permit

remain in Christies possession by repeatedly representing that Christieswas sti

research regarding the Pieces and that they would be included in upcoming actions.

34. Finally, on June 4, 2015, Christies informed Plaintiff that it would

reoffer the Pieces because it could not verify their provenancethe same provena

had represented, without qualification, was verified as authentic and guaranteed

2005 Catalog and March 2007 Catalog, respectively.

35. Since that time, Plaintiff has repeatedly contacted Christies but C



7/8

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud)

36. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates, and re-alleges each and every allegation

in the above paragraphs with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

37. In the March 2005 Catalog, Christies represented that the Blacksto

without qualification, an authentic piece from Northeastern India, from the Pala

Century and that its provenance was that it was acquired by a Boston Collection in

38. In the March 2007 Catalog, Christiesrepresented that the Sandston

without qualification, an authentic piece from Khmer, from the Angkor Period, in

Style, 11th Century and that its provenance was that it was acquired by a pr

collection before 1975.

39. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon these representations when Plaintiff

Pieces.

40. But for Christies representations regarding authenticity and

Plaintiff would not have purchased the Pieces.

41. However, it has recently been discovered from Christies itself th

representations were false when made and/or made with recklessness as to their tr

and intended to induce Plaintiff (and indeed the public) to purchase the Pieces.

42. The conduct, acts and/or omissions of Christies, as set forth abo

fraud.



8/8

Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 8 of 8

Sandran Waran v Christie's

Documents

Transcript of Sandran Waran v Christie's