Legal Opinion

David Tunick, Inc. v. Kornfeld

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 2, 1993No. 91 Civ. 7027 (DNE)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

This action arises from Mr. E.W. Korn-feld’s and Galerie Kornfeld und Cie’s (“defendants”) sale of a signed Picasso print to plaintiff, David Tunick, Inc. (“Tunick” or “plaintiff’). Plaintiff alleges that defendants sold Tunick a print of Le Minotourmachie (the “Print”) which defendants represented was signed by Pablo Picasso but which, in fact, bears a forged signature. Defendants have filed various counterclaims against David Tunick. Defendants deny that the signature on the Print is forged and contend that plaintiff, David Tunick, Inc., and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1988
  2. American Steel Products Corp. v. Penn Central Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1986

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Magee v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
  2. New York v. Solvent Chemical Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 2002
  3. Frederick v. Columbia UniversityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
  4. Feliciano v. County of SuffolkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007
  5. Marsch v. Rensselaer CountyDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API