Board of Managers of Soho International Arts Condominium v. New York
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10221 (2003)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
In 1973, Forrest Myers (defendant) created a commissioned art installation (the work) for the building located at 599 Broadway (building) in New York (defendant) with the consent of the owner, Charles Tanenbaum. The art installation was a three-dimensional work that comprised many aluminum bars attached to braces that were part of the structural design of the northern wall of the building. Myers painted the braces, aluminum bars, and the wall various colors. There was no written agreement regarding the project and no evidence of oral terms regarding the potential removal of the work. The building was part of a historic district, so any repairs to the northern wall of the building required permission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (the commission) (defendant). Over the years, the building’s owners made several repairs to the northern wall, each time facing opposition from the public or Myers to the removal of the work. At some point, the building was organized as a condominium, so the board of directors of the condominium (the board) (plaintiff) began to exercise control over the building. In early 1997, Myers sent a letter to the board, claiming that removal of his work would violate the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), among other laws. In late 1997, the commission permitted the board to temporarily remove the work for repair of the building’s northern wall. Subsequently, the board sought permission to remove the work permanently. After several years of public hearings and meetings, the commission denied the board’s request. Although, at this time, the work had been removed from the building entirely. The board sued New York City, the commission, and Myers, seeking a declaration that Myers had no rights under VARA and thus he had no right to compel restoration of the work or damages for the work’s removal. Without addressing the consequences of removal, the board and Myers filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Batts, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.