English Law Governs Actions for Conversion in Connection With Auctioning of Rare Table That had Been Stored at Warehouse in England but Auctioned in New York

The  Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department in Goldsmith v. Sotheby's, Inc.52 A.D.3d 230 (2008 New York)held that the English law applied to an action for conversion filed in connection with the auctioning of a rare table that was owned by the plaintiff, stored at a warehouse in England, and auctioned in New York.  In this case, there existed conflict between the English statute of repose and the New York law limitations period. The court found that the English law would apply in this case. Although the table was auctioned in New York, remainders of significant contacts were located in England.  

In the instant case, Defendant auctioned and sold a rare and valuable table belonging to Plaintiff without informing him. The table was stored at a warehouse in England from 1985 until April 1995. In April 1995, the table was removed from the warehouse without the Plaintiff’s knowledge.  In 1999, the Plaintiff inquired about the table and came to know that the table was not there in the warehouse and it could not be located.  In 2000, the Plaintiff learned that the Defendant sold the table at an auction in New York conducted in November 1998. Id.  Subsequently, the Plaintiff commenced an action for conversion against Defendant. The Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action bought by Plaintiff was untimely under English law. The Plaintiff countered by alleging the action was brought within three years of the auction of the table and it is timely under CPLR 214 (3). The New York Supreme Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.   

The Appellate Court agreed with the motion court that the English law applied in this case. Sotheby's, Inc.52 A.D.3d at 231. The court found that there exists an actual conflict between the limitations periods of CPLR 214(3) and the English statute of repose for plaintiff’s conversion cause of action, and England has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation. (Internal citations omitted). Id. The court found that, although the auction of plaintiffs' table occurred in New York, the remainder of the significant contacts was located in England. Id. See Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp.  84 NY2d 519. Therefore, the English law applies in this case. Id

The court stated that the English Limitation Act of 1980 and CPLR 214(3) are loss-allocating rules inasmuch as they prohibit, assign, or limit liability after the tort occurs. Id.

However, the court found that the complaint could not be dismissed because the record shows that Plaintiffs raised an issue of fact as to whether, under English law, the applicable repose period had been tolled. Id. The court noted that, per both parties' experts, the six-year limitations period does not begin to run from the date of the conversion where such conversion is a theft or related to a theft. Plaintiffs' expert opined that, under applicable provisions of English Law, the alleged conversion of the table may have constituted a theft, and the expert's findings together with additional documentary and testimonial evidence submitted by plaintiff, presents triable issues regarding the accrual date of the conversion claim. Id

The Appellate Court reversed the motion court’s judgment and reinstated the complaint. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.