throbber
Case 1:20-cv-01496-VM Document 1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`VINCENT FAY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- against -
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
`d/b/a THE PRINCETON UNIVERSITY ART
`MUSEUM,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ECF CASE
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-1496
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff Vincent Fay (“Mr. Fay”), by his attorneys Olsoff | Cahill | Cossu LLP, as and for
`
`its Complaint against defendant The Trustees of Princeton University d/b/a The Princeton Art
`
`Museum (“Defendant”), alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Mr. Fay brings this action to enforce an agreement he entered into with
`
`Defendant, pursuant to which Defendant agreed to purchase 17 valuable works of art (the
`
`“Works”) from Mr. Fay for approximately One Million Dollars. Defendant agreed to pay the
`
`purchase price in two installments and paid the first. The second was due in July 2018.
`
`Defendant failed to make that payment, citing purported “concerns” over the authenticity of
`
`seven of the objects, “rescinded” its agreement to purchase the Works and demanded that Mr.
`
`Fay return those amounts that he has already received. However, regardless of whether
`
`Defendant’s “concerns”—none of which has been documented or supported by any named
`
`experts—are well-founded, the agreements, drafted by Defendant itself, only asked that Mr. Fay
`
`warrant that the Works were, to the best of his knowledge, authentic. As Defendant has provided
`
`no evidence that Mr. Fay has breached this warranty, it is obligated to complete payment for the
`
`Works notwithstanding its purported “concerns.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01496-VM Document 1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 6
`
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Fay is a citizen of the State of New York, residing in New York County.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is a non-profit corporation located in, and
`
`incorporated under, the laws of New Jersey.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
`
`1332 due to the diversity of the parties and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391 because a substantial
`
`part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of New York.
`
`FACTS
`
`Mr. Fay is a collector of fine and decorative art.
`
`Beginning in the 1960’s, Mr. Fay acquired numerous pieces of art outside the
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`United States that later became valuable.
`
`8.
`
`Many of the works owned by Mr. Fay have been included in important museum
`
`exhibitions, including at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louvre Museum, the Museo del
`
`Barrio, Stanford University’s Cantor Arts Center, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Museum
`
`of Art, Williams College, and other museums in Europe (including in France and Belgium).
`
`9.
`
`On or about November 16, 2018, Mr. Fay entered into a contract (the “Contract”)
`
`with Defendant in which he agreed to sell the 17 Works from his collection to Defendant for a
`
`total of Nine Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand dollars ($945,000).
`
`10.
`
`The Contract provided that Defendant would make an initial payment to Mr. Fay
`
`of Four Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($472,500) in December
`
`2018 (the “First Payment”) and a second payment of Four Hundred and Seventy Two Thousand
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01496-VM Document 1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 6
`
`Five Hundred Dollars ($472,500) “in the next fiscal year beginning July 1, 2019” (the “Second
`
`Payment”).
`
`11.
`
`On or about November 16, 2018, Mr. Fay and Defendant also entered into an
`
`additional agreement, drafted by Defendant, entitled “Seller’s Warranty” (the “Warranty”).
`
`12. With respect to the authenticity of the Works, the Warranty provided that the
`
`“Seller hereby certifies and warrants to the best of Seller’s knowledge that the Works are
`
`authentic and are conveyed to Buyer free of all liens and encumbrances.” (Emphasis added).
`
`13.
`
`The Warranty did not provide for any warranties with respect to the authenticity
`
`of the Works other than as set forth above.
`
`14.
`
`The Warranty entitled Defendant to rescind the sale of the Works solely in the
`
`event Mr. Fay breached any of the specific representations and warranties set forth in the
`
`Warranty.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`In or about December 2018, Defendant made the First Payment to Mr. Fay.
`
`Beginning in June 2019, Defendant began to express to Mr. Fay concerns with
`
`respect to the authenticity of certain of the Works.
`
`17.
`
`In an email dated June 21, 2019, Defendant stated that it would not make the
`
`Second Payment until it was satisfied that the Works were authentic.
`
`18. While expressing concern with respect to the authenticity of the Works,
`
`Defendant did not allege in this email that Mr. Fay had any knowledge of the alleged issues
`
`relating to the authenticity of the Works.
`
`19.
`
`On or about October 9, 2019, Defendant informed Mr. Fay by letter that it was
`
`rescinding the sale of the Works based on “serious concerns regarding the authenticity,
`
`provenance and market value of the objects” (the “Rescission Letter”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01496-VM Document 1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 4 of 6
`
`20.
`
`In the Rescission Letter, Defendant demanded that Mr. Fay return the First
`
`Payment to Defendant and stated that it would not make the Second Payment.
`
`21.
`
`In the Rescission Letter, Defendant did not allege that Mr. Fay had any
`
`knowledge of the alleged concerns over the authenticity of the Works.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Works are authentic.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is not in possession of any evidence that
`
`indisputably establishes that any of the Works are not authentic.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant does not itself believe that all of the
`
`Works are inauthentic.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant is not in possession of any evidence that
`
`Mr. Fay had knowledge that any of the Works had authenticity concerns.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant has failed to make the Second Payment and has demanded that Mr. Fay
`
`return the First Payment.
`
`27. Mr. Fay has been damaged both by Defendant’s refusal to make the Second
`
`Payment and demand for the return of the First Payment.
`
`28. Mr. Fay’s damages include the amount of the Second Payment, and related costs
`
`and expenses.
`
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(BREACH OF CONTRACT)
`
`29. Mr. Fay repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 28
`
`above.
`
`30. Mr. Fay and Defendant were parties to the Contract.
`
`31. Mr. Fay and Defendant agreed to all terms of the Contract.
`
`32. Mr. Fay performed all of his obligations under the Contract.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01496-VM Document 1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 5 of 6
`
`33.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the Contract and the Warranty, Defendant was obligated
`
`to make the Second Payment unless the sale was subject to rescission pursuant to the terms of the
`
`Warranty.
`
`34. Whatever concerns Defendant now purports to have with respect to the
`
`authenticity of certain of the Works, the sale is not subject to rescission as Defendant has offered
`
`no evidence that Mr. Fay was aware of any issues with respect to authenticity.
`
`35. Mr. Fay has suffered damages in amount to be determined at trial, but in no event
`
`totaling less than Four Hundred and Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($472,500)
`
`due to Defendant’s breach of the Contract.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01496-VM Document 1 Filed 02/20/20 Page 6 of 6
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
`
`a. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but no
`less than Four Hundred and Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
`($472,500.00), plus interest;
`
`b. Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys’ fees;
`and
`
`c. Awarding Plaintiff such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
`
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`2020–February-20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLSOFF | CAHILL | COSSU LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ John R. Cahill
`
`John R. Cahill
`Paul S. Cossu
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019
`jcahill@occllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Vincent Fay
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket