FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/04/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2014

Transcription

1 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/04/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/04/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS x MIMI SAMUELS, MECHEL HANDLER, DEBRA BASSAN, DINAH PINCZOWER, LEO SIEGMAN as Administrator for THE ESTATE OF RACHEL SIEGMAN, EDWARD COHN, individually and as Administrator for THE ESTATE OF STEVEN DEARAKIE, Plaintiffs, Index No. - against - VERIFIED COMPLAINT SHAYA GORDON, MICHELLE RAE GORDON, DEBORAH LEA GORDON-COEN, individually and as executors of the ESTATE OF SCHABSE GORDON, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, Defendants x Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Newman Law, P.C., for their verified complaint against defendants, allege as follows: 1. This is an action for conversion, replevin, breach of fiduciary duty, and promissory estoppel arising from defendants refusal to return a valuable painting believed to be by Claude Monet, titled Women at Arles (the Monet ), which is owned by the plaintiffs. Parties 2. Plaintiff Mimi Samuels ( Samuels ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Nassau. Samuels is one of the three children of Leah Handler. Leah Handler is deceased. Leah Handler was one of the five children of David C. Arakie ( Arakie ). 3. Plaintiff Mechel Handler ( Handler ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. Handler is one of the three children of Leah Handler. 4. Plaintiff Debra Bassan ( Bassan ) is a resident of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen. Bassan is one of the three children of Leah Handler (collectively with Samuels and

2 Handler, the Handler Group ). Through an inter vivos gift from their mother, the Handler Group jointly owns one fifth of the Monet. 5. Plaintiff Dinah Pinczower ( Pinczower ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Bronx. Pinczower is one of the five Arakie children. Pinczower owns one fifth of the Monet as described below. 6. Plaintiff Leo Siegman as Administrator of the Estate of Rachel Siegman, is a resident of the State of New York, County of Queens and owns one fifth of the Monet as described below. Rachel Siegman, who is deceased, was one of the five Arakie children. 7. Edward Cohn ( Cohn ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of New York. Cohn is one of the five Arakie children and owner of one fifth of the Monet. 8. Steven Dearakie ( Dearakie ) was a resident of the State of New York, County of New York. Dearakie was one of the five Arakie children. Dearakie died on or about October 25, Pursuant to Letters of Administration duly issued by the New York County Surrogate s Court on or about December 25, 2005, Cohn was appointed Administrator over his brother s estate. The Estate of Steven Dearakie is an owner of one fifth of the Monet. 9. Defendant Shaya Gordon ( Shaya ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. Upon information and belief, Shaya is one of Schabse Gordon s children and is a co-executor of the Estate of Schabse Gordon (the Gordon Estate ). 10. Defendant Michelle Rae Gordon ( Michelle ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. Upon information and belief, Michelle is one of Schabse Gordon s children and is a co-executrix of the Gordon Estate. 2

3 11. Defendant Deborah Lea Gordon-Coen ( Deborah ) is a resident of the State of New York, County of Kings. Upon information and belief, Deborah is one of Schabse Gordon s children and is a co-executrix of the Gordon Estate. Facts Common To All Causes of Action 12. On or about 1970, Arakie, an art collector, gifted his entire art collection, including a painting believed to be by Claude Monet, to his five children equally. 13. Upon information and belief, Steven was also an art collector. On or about July 6, 1971, as a result of an agreement between the Arakie children, the Arakie children allowed Steven Dearakie to display the Monet in his home, with the understanding that the Monet would continue to be jointly owned by the Arakie children. 14. Upon information and belief, Steven loaned the Monet to the Parrish Art Museum from about July 25, 1973 through September 10, 1973 and received a certificate of insurance issued by Lloyd s of London for same. 15. Toward the end of his life, Steven suffered from severe Parkinson s disease, as well as multiple strokes. During this period, Steven was under the care and influence of a full time nurse. 16. During his sickness, Steven began suffering from severe financial difficulties, as he had no source of income and numerous expenses. Toward the end of his life, Steven was defending the foreclosure of his home. 17. Upon information and belief, Steven s friend, Martin Cohen, introduced Steven to Schabse Gordon ( Gordon ) a well-known philanthropist in the Jewish community. 18. Cohen introduced Gordon as a close friend and known Jewish philanthropist with extensive expertise in art. 3

4 19. Cash poor, Steven had a substantial amount of very valuable art and collectible items, including paintings, furniture, watches and cufflinks. Upon information and belief, in 2003, Gordon offered to appraise and potentially assist in the sale of several valuable items belonging to Steven to alleviate Steven s financial distress. 20. On or about late 2003, after perusing Steven s collection, Gordon took seven valuable items from Steven s art collection, including the Monet, to appraise and safeguard pending a determination as to the items value and the potential sale of such items to pay Steven s debts and save his home. Gordon s receipt of the items and his agreement to take responsibility thereof were memorialized in a written receipt signed by Gordon (the Receipt ). 21. Pursuant to the Receipt, Gordon held Steven s valuables for safekeeping, to appraise and look for a potential buyer for same on Steven s behalf, and return the items if there was no buyer. 22. The items, including the Monet, were never appraised, sold or returned. 23. On or about September 8, 2004, Gordon died. 24. Neither Steven Dearakie nor his estate received the return of the seven items or any money from Gordon. 25. Upon Gordon s death, the Gordon Estate took possession of the Monet. Upon information and belief, the Monet is either in the possession of the Gordon Estate or one of Gordon s children, or the Gordon Estate s attorney, Mark D. Mermel, Esq. 26. On or about May 2014, Samuels attempted to contact the defendants to demand the return of the Monet. Further on or about August 21, 2014, plaintiffs sent a written demand for the return of the Monet to defendants. To date, defendants have not returned the Monet. 4

5 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Conversion) 27. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 28. As set forth above, defendants have engaged in transactions designed to misappropriate and convert the Monet for themselves. 29. As a result of their wrongful acts set forth above, defendants have exercised unauthorized dominion and control over plaintiffs assets, to the exclusion of plaintiffs rights, and to plaintiffs detriment. Plaintiffs have made a demand for the return of the Monet, and the defendants refusal to return the Monet to its true owner created the underlying cause of action in conversion. 30. As a direct and proximate result of this misconduct, plaintiffs have sustained and will sustain substantial losses and damages estimated to exceed $50 million, the precise amount to be determined at trial. 31. Defendants conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, fraudulent and shocking to the conscience, and was perpetrated in total disregard for plaintiff s rights. By reason of the foregoing, defendants should be liable, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the sum of at least $250 million, so as to deter themselves and others similarly inclined from perpetrating in the future such acts of misconduct as were committed by the defendants, plus prejudgment interest, the precise amount to be determined at trial. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Replevin) 32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein. 5

6 33. As set forth above, defendants have engaged in transactions designed to misappropriate and convert the Monet for themselves. 34. As set forth above, defendants are in possession of the Monet, which is owned by the Arakie children. 35. As a result of their wrongful acts set forth above, defendants have exercised unauthorized dominion and control over plaintiffs assets, to the exclusion of plaintiffs rights, and to their detriment. Plaintiffs have made a demand for the return of the Monet, and the defendants refusal to return the Monet to its true owner created the underlying cause of action in replevin to recover the Monet. 36. Defendants should be ordered to return the Monet. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants refusal to return the Monet, plaintiffs have sustained and will sustain substantial losses and damages estimated to exceed $50 million, the precise amount to be determined at trial. 37. Defendants conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, fraudulent and shocking to the conscience, and was perpetrated in total disregard for plaintiff s rights. By reason of the foregoing, defendants should be liable, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the sum of at least $250 million, so as to deter themselves and others similarly inclined from perpetrating in the future such acts of misconduct as were committed by the defendants, plus prejudgment interest, the precise amount to be determined at trial. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach Of Fiduciary Duties) 38. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 37 above, as if fully set forth herein. 6

7 39. Upon information and belief, Gordon had a reputation in the Jewish community as someone who helped people in financial need. In addition, upon information and belief, Steven s friend, Martin Cohen, reassured Steven of same. Accordingly, Steven reasonably placed his trust and confidence in Gordon, relying on him to safeguard the Monet and return it to Steven. 40. As a result of his promise to appraise and safeguard the Monet and to return it to Steven, Gordon and the defendants owed Steven and the Dearakie children the duty of a fiduciary, including the duty (a) to refrain from converting the Monet for their own use, (b) not to engage in activities detrimental to the safe return of the Monet, (c) to prevent loss or damage to the Monet, and (d) not to misappropriate the Monet. 41. As more fully described above, the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to Steven in multiple respects by refusing to return the Monet to its rightful owner. 42. The defendants benefitted by their breaches of fiduciary duties to the Arakie children s detriment. 43. As a direct and proximate cause of the defendants actions, plaintiffs have sustained injury, the precise amount to be determined at trial but believed to be in excess of $50 million. 44. The defendants conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, fraudulent and shocking to the conscience, and was perpetrated in total disregard for the entities and plaintiffs rights. By reason of the foregoing, the defendants should be liable for punitive damages in the sum of at least $250 million, so as to deter themselves and others similarly inclined from perpetrating in the future such acts of misconduct as were committed by the defendants, plus prejudgment interest, the precise amount to be determined at trial. 7

8 AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Promissory Estoppel) 45. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44 above, as if fully set forth herein. 46. As outlined above, Gordon made explicit promises to Steven that he would safeguard, appraise, and return the Monet. 47. For the reasons discussed above, Steven reasonably and justifiably relied on the explicit promises made by Gordon and gave the Monet to Gordon. 48. Gordon s promises were false. 49. As a proximate result of Gordon s false promises, plaintiffs have incurred and continues to incur substantial damages, in an amount in excess of $50 million, the precise amount to be determined at trial. 50. The defendants conduct was intentional, wanton, malicious, fraudulent and shocking to the conscience, and was perpetrated in total disregard for plaintiff s rights. By reason of the foregoing, the defendants should be liable, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the sum of at least $250 million, so as to deter themselves and others similarly inclined from perpetrating in the future such acts of misconduct as were committed by the defendants, plus prejudgment interest, the precise amount to be determined at trial. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment) 51. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 50 above, as if fully set forth herein. 52. A dispute has arisen between the parties concerning their respective rights, interests and privileges as owners of the Monet. 8

9 53. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order declaring and adjudicating that they are the owners of the Monet. 54. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. AS AND FOR AN SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Permanent Injunction) 55. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 54 above, as if fully set forth herein. 56. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed unless the Monet is returned to them. 57. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 58. Therefore, defendants should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from denying plaintiffs access to the Monet, or, in the alternative, from denying plaintiffs the profits from the sale of the Monet. follows: Monet; WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, as a. For an order adjudging and declaring that plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the b. For an order permanently enjoining defendants from preventing plaintiffs from accessing and possessing the Monet; c. For damages in an amount to be proved at trial, plus interest, costs, and attorneys fees, estimated to exceed $50 million; million; d. For punitive damages in an amount to be proved at trial, but no less than $250 e. Ordering defendants to return the Monet to plaintiffs; and 9

10 appropriate. f. For such other and further relief the Court may determine just, necessary and Dated: Cedarhurst, New York September 2, 2014 NEWMAN LAW, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs By: Evan M. Newman 377 Pearsall Avenue, Suite C Cedarhurst, New York Tel: (516) Fax: (212) enewman@newmanlawpc.com 10

11