Christie’s Inc. v. Davis

Christie’s Inc. (plaintiff) lent money to Jerome and Susan Davis (defendants). The loans were secured by hundreds of pieces of fine and decorative art and antique furniture (collectively, collateral) that the Davises owned. The decorative art and antique furniture were created in China or Europe in the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. Upon the Davises’ failure to repay the loans, Christie’s sued the Davises pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 7108, seeking an order establishing that the possessory interest that Christie’s held in the collateral was superior to the Davises’ possessory interest. In addition, contending that the collateral was unique, Christie’s requested an order pursuant to CPLR § 7109(b) directing the Davises to deliver the collateral to Christie’s. Christie’s moved for summary judgment. The Davises conceded that they owed money to Christie’s and that the fine-art paintings in the collateral pool were unique. However, the Davises argued that Christie’s failed to show that the furniture and decorative items in the collateral pool were unique. Christie’s responded that it need not establish that each individual item was rare or irreplaceable; rather, per Christie’s, it had to show only that a money judgment would be an inadequate remedy because the items were not mass produced or easily available on that market.