|
The earliest tidbit that we have uncovered goes back to a filing concerning their 1989 income taxes to the State of New York.
It seems the Rogaths decided to leave the Big Apple for the more friendlier climes of Connecticut. So, they bought a small bungalow
in Connecticut for a paltry 6 million dollars. Yes, boys and girls, that's 6 Big Ones, a six with SIX ZEROS after it; $6,000,000.00.
Dave, the art business must pay r-e-a-l well. Anywho, seems they spent s-o-o-o much on the sugar shack that they wanted to avoid
paying the fair State of New York it's annual pound of flesh. But, the Great State of New York said "NO" in this
decision dated July 5, 1994 (it's in PDF format). We guess six million dollars just doesn't go
as far as it used to.
Ilya GHERMAN v. Erik ESTORICK and Sevenarts, Ltd started in 1991.
This ruling is from 1993. Docket No. 91 CIV. 7862 (SWK), United States District Court, S.D. New York, June 3, 1993.
Gherman sued Estorick and Sevenarts for Breach of Contract (seems to be a lot
of that concerning our fopish friends). Here, judge disallows defendants' motion for summary judgment as premature and grants an
extension of discovery "...in light of defendants' lack of complete candor during the discovery period...".
Ronald BORSACK v. CHALK & VERMILION FINE ARTS, LTD., Sevenarts, Ltd.,
96 CV 6587, S.D. New York, August 7, 1997, Where Borsack filed a breach of contract action against Sevenarts and Chalk & Vermilion.
This decision involves arbitration and remand. This is not the final decision.
Michael Delacroix v. Lublin Graphics, Inc
No. 3:94CV01037 (WWE)., United States District Court, D. Connecticut, August 12, 1997. A curious case involving an artist, Delacroix, suing Lublin
graphics, where Chalk & Vermilion was not a party to the case but much of the case revolved around Chalk & Vermilion. The judge stated: "
"It may turn out that defendant has complied and that plaintiff's difficulties lie with Chalk & Vermilion, against
whom he would have to pursue a separate action."
David Rogath v. Werner E. R. Siebenmann,
Docket Nos. 96-9300, -9481, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, August 28, 1997.
Court reversed a lower decision granting Rogath damages over a painting Rogath purchased from Siebenmann. Seems
Rogath paid some $570,000 for a painting without making sure it was authentic? Please.
Rogath vs Koegel, is funny. Seems David Rogath, you remember him, sued
the lawyer for the other side in Rogath vs Siebenmann (see above), claiming by Koegel conversion, breach of fiduciary duty
and fraud, seeking damages and attorney fees. Court dismissed all claims while barring Rogath from refiling. Judge even childed Rogath,
saying, "Plaintiff grossly mischaracterizes the Court's previous decision." David ROGATH vs John B. KOEGEL,
Docket No. 96 CIV. 8729(DAB), Oct. 6, 1998, United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Steve KAUFMAN v. CHALK & VERMILION FINE ARTS, LLC, doing business as
Martin Lawrence Galleries ,
Docket No. 01-7202, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Jan. 11, 2002. Court upheld jury
verdict finding kaufman was entitled to artwork he had given to Martin Lawrence on consignment. Martin Lawrence was bought
out by Chalk & Vermilion in Bankrupcy who then claimed the artwork on consignment belinged to them as part of the bankruptcy assets.
After a jury trial, Kaufman prevailed on all claims and received a judgment ordering damages of $875,158, the return of his undamaged
artwork on consignment, and the incineration of his damaged artwork. Court flatly reject Chalk & Vermilion's claims of ownership through
bankruptcy.
Chalk & Vermillion v Thomas F. McKnight, LLC,
2003 NYSlipOp 11964, Appellate Division, First Department, Decided on March 13, 2003. Court unanimously
dismissed the complaint as against defendant McKnight.
Chalk & Vermillion, LLC v Thomas F. McKnight, LLC,
2005 NY Slip Op 08027, Appellate Division, First Department, Decided on November 1, 2005. Court upheld jury
verdict finding McKnight had met his contractual obligations.
|
