In re Rothko
Court of Appeals of New York
372 N.E.2d 291 (1977)
Mark Rothko’s will named as executors his close friends, Bernard J. Reis, Theodoros Stamos, and Morton Levine (Executors) (defendants), who were responsible for selling seven hundred and ninety-eight of Rothko’s paintings. The Executors entered into two contracts with Marlborough A.G. (MAG) and Marlborough Gallery Inc. (MGI) (defendants), under which they sold or consigned all of the paintings within three weeks of receiving letters testamentary. In the first agreement, MAG purchased one hundred paintings for $1,800,000 and MGI agreed to consign approximately seven hundred paintings for a fifty percent commission. Mark Rothko’s children, Kate and Christopher Rothko (plaintiffs), joined by the Attorney General on behalf of the residuary legatee, the Mark Rothko Foundation, Inc. (plaintiff), commenced actions to have the Executors removed, the agreements the Executors executed with MAG and MGI rescinded and the paintings returned to the estate. Despite the court’s grant of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring disposition of the paintings, Francis K. Lloyd (defendant), who was in charge of MAG and MGI’s business transactions, disposed of fifty-seven paintings. After a trial, the Surrogate’s Court found that the paintings were sold for less than their actual value and both Reis and Stamos had a conflict of interest regarding the MAG and MGI contracts because Reis was employed by MGI as an executive and Stamos personally benefited as an artist by his involvement in the contracts. The court also found that Levine, although not personally conflicted, was negligent in allowing the conflicted transactions to proceed and the paintings to be sold below value. The court also found MAG, MGI and Lloyd guilty of contempt for selling the fifty-seven paintings. The court rescinded the conflicted contracts and held Reis, Stamos, MAG and MGI jointly and severally liable for damages in the amount of $9,252,000 which included appreciation damages calculated from the difference in the value of the paintings at the time of the court’s order. Since Levine had not acted in bad faith, the court held him jointly and severally liable for the lesser amount of $6,464,880, the difference in value of the paintings when MAG and MGI sold them. The Appellate Division affirmed the Surrogate’s Court’s order with a minor modification. The Executors, MAG and MGI appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Cooke, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.