Tortious Interference Case Highlights Statute of Limitations Challenge
In 'S.A.R.L. Galerie Enrico Navarra v. Marlborough Gallery', the First Department agreed with the Supreme Court that plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contract and aiding and abetting tortious interference with contract had not expired as a matter of law, because all of the elements of the claims had materialized before the statute of limitations had run its course.
May 11, 2021 at 11:10 AM
7 minute read
When does the statute of limitations start to run on a tortious interference with contract claim when the breach occurred somewhere on a spectrum of increasingly breach-like behavior? The Appellate Division, First Department, tackled that question in a May 6 decision concerning a long-running dispute involving the work of world-renowned Chinese-French artist Chu Teh-Chun. In S.A.R.L. Galerie Enrico Navarra v. Marlborough Gallery, the First Department agreed with the Supreme Court that plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with contract and aiding and abetting tortious interference with contract had not expired as a matter of law, because all of the elements of the claims had materialized before the statute of limitations had run its course. The case highlights the challenges of determining when a breach of contract occurred, and the tension between statutes of limitations and the rights of an injured party to bring a claim.
|Background
The facts underlying this case go back to 2003, when the plaintiff, Galerie Enrico Navarra (Navarra), contracted with a non-party, the now dead abstract artist Chu Teh-Chun (Chu). Under their agreement, Chu would design 24 ceramic plates, and Navarra would support Chu by, among other things, paying for the production of the plates, helping to promote the sale of the plates, and, ultimately, selling the plates.
Allegedly because of tortious interference by the defendant, Marlborough Gallery (Marlborough), the relationship between Navarra and Chu soured over the next few years, and in February 2007 Chu first sent a cease-and-desist letter to Navarra claiming that the gallery had breached their agreement. Then, two months later, Chu sued Navarra on the same grounds in France. In May 2008, Chu took additional action against Navarra, first by sending a letter to Christie's in Hong Kong, casting doubt on the authenticity of plates that Navarra had arranged to be auctioned there, and demanding that Christie's withdraw the plates from auction. Then, in October 2008, an advertisement appeared in a French art magazine announcing that the plates that Navarra was offering for sale were not authentic.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPreemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
13 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250