Levin v. Gallery 63 Antiques Corp.

Mark and Becky Levin (plaintiffs) decorated their homes with antiques with the help of an interior designer, Roger Harned. In January 2000, Harned visited Gallery 63 Antiques Corp. (Gallery 63) (defendant) to look for sculptures for one of the Levins’ homes. Harned discussed the purchase of five Italian statues with Rochelle Sepenuk (defendant), Gallery 63’s owner. Harned recommend to the Levins that they purchase the five statues for their home. The Levins agreed to purchase the statues. Because Sepenuk had to hold the statues at her gallery until the Levins’ home was ready to receive them, Sepenuk obtained three appraisals from qualified experts for the statues for insurance purposes. All three appraisals were positive and provided similar estimates for the value of the statues. After learning of the appraisals, the Levins also obtained an independent appraisal that was similarly positive. The parties consummated the sale of the statues with payment to Gallery 63 and an invoice sent to the Levins. The invoice described each statue and indicated that each statue was signed by a named author without qualification or mention of the possibility that the statue might have been merely produced under the direction of the named author. At some point, the Levins became suspicious of the authenticity of the artworks purchased through Harned. The Levins hired three appraisers to evaluate many of their artworks. Ultimately, the Levins learned that the statues were not necessarily original sculptures by the signed author and were not worth near what they paid. During the time period in which the statues were created, it was often the practice of a master artist to sign his name to works that were produced in his studio under his direction. The Levins brought an action for breach of warranty, among other claims, against Gallery 63. Gallery 63 moved for summary judgment.