Tabberone's Hall of Shame - Sevenarts Ltd

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Tabberone Logo

The latest Hartsel weather.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Lawsuits Involving Sevenarts, Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts,
and/or the Rogaths, in just New York and Connecticut

18 lawsuits listed here that we have found. 18! Want to bet there are more?

#1 91 CIV. 7862 (SWK) Gherman v. Estorick and Sevenarts U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
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...".

#2 92-CV-08778-CLB Axelle Fine Arts Co v. Rogath U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
On December 7, 1992, Axelle Fine Arts Co filed a lawsuit against them, officially called Axelle Fine Arts Co., et al v. Rogath, et al, court docket number 92-CV-08778-CLB. The case ended September 9, 1994. We don't know the outcome.

#3 92-9278 Chalk & Vermilion v. Clark Appellate Division, First Department
In Chalk & Vermilion v. Clark, et al, filed November 25, 1992, Court of Appeals Docket 92-9278, (regular court docket number 91-CV-1845), it appears the Court dismissed the appeal by C&V, where C&V had sued Joe Clark and his company, J.L. Clark Fine Arts LTD., for something dealing with a contract (court has action listed as Nsuit: 4190 CONTRACT-Other Contract Action), and appears to have lost in the lower court. Seems after filing for the appeal, C&V didn't follow through. Court docket states: "Order dismissing appeal pursuant to CAMP for failure to comply with the scheduling order filed."

#4 93-cv-01310-LMM Sevenarts Limited v. Frid U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Sevenarts Limited v. Frid, et al, filed March 5, 1993, court docket number 93-CV-7566, Lawrence M. McKenna, presiding. Date terminated: 04/23/1996. Date of last filing: 04/23/1996. We cdon't know the outcome.

#5 93-cv-07566-DAB-HBP Rogath v. Siebenmann U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Rogath v. Siebenmann, filed November 11, 1993, court docket number 93-CV-7566, lasted until November 15, 2000. SEVEN YEARS. The printout of this case covers five pages and who the hell understands the court notations, but we'll try. It appears a judgment was entered on October 10, 1996. We have no idea who prevailed. A notice of appeal was immediately filed, by whom, we don't know, but we're betting on our budby, David Rogath. On December 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals appears to have entered their decision. Seems on June 29, 1999, one of the attorneys submitted a Motion To Withdraw as Attorney. Care to speculate whose attorney? On November 14, 2000, something was dismissed. Since all of you fans out there are waiting on the edge of your seats, we'll let you know more as we find out more.

#6 94-CV-00596-AVC Delacroix v. Rogath U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
On April 12, 1994, Delacroix v. Rogath, et al was filed. Court docket number 94-CV-00596-AVC. Case ended May 30, 1996. We don't know the outcome.

#7 94CV01037 (WWE) Delacroix v. Lublin Graphics U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
Michael Delacroix v. Lublin Graphics, Inc 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."

#8 95-CV-02539-RNC Gerber v. Chalk & Vermilion U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
On November 28, 1995, Gerber v. Chalk & Vermilion, et al was filed. Court docket number 95-CV-02539-RNC. Case ended June 5, 1996. We don't know the outcome.

#9 96-cv-00895-LLS Sevenarts Limited vs Circle Fine Art Corp U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Sevenarts Limited, et al v. Circle Fine Art Corp, Docket Nos. 96-cv-00895-LLS, February 6, 1996. Date terminated: 04/03/1996. Date of last filing: 04/03/1996. Another one settled quickly. However, we have no idea of the issues or the outcome.

#10 96-9300 David Rogath v. Werner E. R. Siebenmann U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
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 that granted 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! Hey, Dave? Want to buy some ocean-front property in Colorado?
Too Funny!

#11 97-CV-01347-SAS Chalk & Vermilion v. Art Renaissance Inc U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Chalk & Vermilion v. Art Renaissance Inc., et al was filed February 26, 1997, court docket number 97-CV-01347-SAS. This one appears to have been settled quickly as the case ended April 25, 1997, two months later. We don't know the outcome.

#12 96-CV-06587-BDP Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Borasck, et al v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, et al, court docket number 96-CV-06587-BDP was filed August 29, 1996. The case ended November 2, 1998. We don't know the outcome. The ruling here is procedural but it does talk about details of the case. Borsak sued Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts for breach of contract (So what else is new? They seem to be getting sued a lot for that.)

#13 96 CIV. 8729(DAB) Rogath vs Koegel U.S. District Court, S.D. New York

No!
Stop! Rogath vs Koegel, is funny. Seems David Rogath, you remember him, sued the lawyer for the other side in Rogath vs Siebenmann (see below), claiming conversion separately and as part of a conspiracy, fraud and deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of Judiciary Law § 487, unjust enrichment, attorney's fees, and legal malpractice. Court dismissed all claims while barring Rogath from refiling. Judge even childed Rogath, saying, "Plaintiff (Rogath) 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. Why are we not acting surprised?

#14 99-CV-03336-DC Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion was filed May 7, 1999, court docket number 99-CV-03336-DC. This one ended up in the Court of Appeals.

#15 00-CV-01784-CM Chalk & Vermillion v. Borsack U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
On March 3, 2000, seems our erstwhile fops sued one of their antangonists from 1998, Borasck, in C&V Fine Arts, LLC, et al v. Borsack, et al, court docket number 00-CV-01784-CM. This case ended March 26, 2003. We don't know the outcome.

#16 01-7202 Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion Appellate Division, First Department
Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion, Court of Appeals Docket 01-7202, was another Nsuit: 4190 CONTRACT-Other Contract Action case, appealed by C&V (this time dba Martin Lawrence Galleries), filed February 20, 2001, after again losing in the lower court. On January 11, 2002, the Court of Appeals entered the following: "Judgment filed; judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED`by detailed order of the court without opinion filed."

#17 2003 NYSlipOp 11964 Chalk & Vermillion v Thomas F. McKnight Appellate Division, First Department
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 Thomas McKnight.

#18 2005 NY Slip Op 08027 Chalk & Vermillion v Thomas F. McKnight Appellate Division, First Department
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.

OUCH! Poor babies are Zero for Four in the Court of Appeals? It's no wonder C&V keeps changing lawyers. Based upon their lack of success in New York Courts, we wonder why they are challenging jurisdiction in Denver. Seems to us they would welcome the opportunity to be heard by a new court that hasn't ruled against them. We wonder about all of the Contract issues C&V keeps losing in court. All four of the Court of Appeals losses look like they were contract-related. We certainly wouldn't buy anything from them based upon this track record.
We'll have more information about the unknown outcome cases above. We're contacting the Clerk of the Court in New York and Connecticut for copies of the judgments. Based upon C&V's record in the Court of Appeals, we expect to find they lost most, if not all.

Rebuttals
In an effort to provide a balanced view, we make the following offer to anyone who feels they have been wrongly accused on this web site.
If you, or your company, have been referenced on these pages, and you would like the chance to post a rebuttal, we will post your rebuttal (provided it is in good taste) so others can read it. The rebuttal must be submitted in a format that can easily be converted into HTML. We reserve the right to alter the rebuttal to make it more readable. However, we will not alter the content (unless there is offensive material to be removed). We also reserve the right to comment on any rebuttal received. Emails protesting the content of this web site may be treated as rebuttals by us at our discretion.

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<

#1	91 CIV. 7862 (SWK)	Gherman v. Estorick and Sevenarts	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
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...".

#2	92-CV-08778-CLB	Axelle Fine Arts Co v. Rogath	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
On December 7, 1992, Axelle Fine Arts Co filed a lawsuit against them, officially called Axelle Fine Arts Co., et al v. Rogath, et al, court docket number 92-CV-08778-CLB. The case ended September 9, 1994. We don't know the outcome.

#3	92-9278	Chalk & Vermilion v. Clark	Appellate Division, First Department
In Chalk & Vermilion v. Clark, et al, filed November 25, 1992, Court of Appeals Docket 92-9278, (regular court docket number 91-CV-1845), it appears the Court dismissed the appeal by C&V, where C&V had sued Joe Clark and his company, J.L. Clark Fine Arts LTD., for something dealing with a contract (court has action listed as Nsuit: 4190 CONTRACT-Other Contract Action), and appears to have lost in the lower court. Seems after filing for the appeal, C&V didn't follow through. Court docket states: "Order dismissing appeal pursuant to CAMP for failure to comply with the scheduling order filed."

#4	93-cv-01310-LMM	Sevenarts Limited v. Frid	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Sevenarts Limited v. Frid, et al, filed March 5, 1993, court docket number 93-CV-7566, Lawrence M. McKenna, presiding. Date terminated: 04/23/1996. Date of last filing: 04/23/1996. We cdon't know the outcome.

#5	93-cv-07566-DAB-HBP	Rogath v. Siebenmann	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Rogath v. Siebenmann, filed November 11, 1993, court docket number 93-CV-7566, lasted until November 15, 2000. SEVEN YEARS. The printout of this case covers five pages and who the hell understands the court notations, but we'll try. It appears a judgment was entered on October 10, 1996. We have no idea who prevailed. A notice of appeal was immediately filed, by whom, we don't know, but we're betting on our budby, David Rogath. On December 9, 1997, the Court of Appeals appears to have entered their decision. Seems on June 29, 1999, one of the attorneys submitted a Motion To Withdraw as Attorney. Care to speculate whose attorney? On November 14, 2000, something was dismissed. Since all of you fans out there are waiting on the edge of your seats, we'll let you know more as we find out more.

#6	94-CV-00596-AVC	Delacroix v. Rogath	U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
On April 12, 1994, Delacroix v. Rogath, et al was filed. Court docket number 94-CV-00596-AVC. Case ended May 30, 1996. We don't know the outcome.

#7	94CV01037 (WWE)	Delacroix v. Lublin Graphics	U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
Michael Delacroix v. Lublin Graphics, Inc 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."

#8	95-CV-02539-RNC	Gerber v. Chalk & Vermilion	U.S. District Court, D. Connecticut
On November 28, 1995, Gerber v. Chalk & Vermilion, et al was filed. Court docket number 95-CV-02539-RNC. Case ended June 5, 1996. We don't know the outcome.

#9	96-cv-00895-LLS	Sevenarts Limited vs Circle Fine Art Corp	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Sevenarts Limited, et al v. Circle Fine Art Corp, Docket Nos. 96-cv-00895-LLS, February 6, 1996. Date terminated: 04/03/1996. Date of last filing: 04/03/1996. Another one settled quickly. However, we have no idea of the issues or the outcome.

#10	96-9300	David Rogath v. Werner E. R. Siebenmann	U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
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 that granted 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! Hey, Dave? Want to buy some ocean-front property in Colorado?			Too Funny!

#11	97-CV-01347-SAS	Chalk & Vermilion v. Art Renaissance Inc	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Chalk & Vermilion v. Art Renaissance Inc., et al was filed February 26, 1997, court docket number 97-CV-01347-SAS. This one appears to have been settled quickly as the case ended April 25, 1997, two months later. We don't know the outcome.

#12	96-CV-06587-BDP	Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Borasck, et al v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, et al, court docket number 96-CV-06587-BDP was filed August 29, 1996. The case ended November 2, 1998. We don't know the outcome. The ruling here is procedural but it does talk about details of the case. Borsak sued Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts for breach of contract (So what else is new? They seem to be getting sued a lot for that.)

#13	96 CIV. 8729(DAB)	Rogath vs Koegel	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
No! Stop!	Rogath vs Koegel, is funny. Seems David Rogath, you remember him, sued the lawyer for the other side in Rogath vs Siebenmann (see below), claiming conversion separately and as part of a conspiracy, fraud and deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of Judiciary Law § 487, unjust enrichment, attorney's fees, and legal malpractice. Court dismissed all claims while barring Rogath from refiling. Judge even childed Rogath, saying, "Plaintiff (Rogath) 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. Why are we not acting surprised?

#14	99-CV-03336-DC	Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion was filed May 7, 1999, court docket number 99-CV-03336-DC. This one ended up in the Court of Appeals.

#15	00-CV-01784-CM	Chalk & Vermillion v. Borsack	U.S. District Court, S.D. New York
On March 3, 2000, seems our erstwhile fops sued one of their antangonists from 1998, Borasck, in C&V Fine Arts, LLC, et al v. Borsack, et al, court docket number 00-CV-01784-CM. This case ended March 26, 2003. We don't know the outcome.

#16	01-7202	Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion	Appellate Division, First Department
Kaufman v. Chalk & Vermillion, Court of Appeals Docket 01-7202, was another Nsuit: 4190 CONTRACT-Other Contract Action case, appealed by C&V (this time dba Martin Lawrence Galleries), filed February 20, 2001, after again losing in the lower court. On January 11, 2002, the Court of Appeals entered the following: "Judgment filed; judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED`by detailed order of the court without opinion filed."

#17	2003 NYSlipOp 11964	Chalk & Vermillion v Thomas F. McKnight	Appellate Division, First Department
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 Thomas McKnight.

#18	2005 NY Slip Op 08027	Chalk & Vermillion v Thomas F. McKnight	Appellate Division, First Department
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.