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
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
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
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 2
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
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
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 3
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
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
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
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
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 5
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
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
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 6
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
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.
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 7
7/24/2019 Sandran Waran v Christie's
8/8
Case 1:16-cv-01386-WHP Document 1 Filed 02/23/16 Page 8 of 8
Top Related