This is a brief excerpt from the document you requested from IFAR’s Art Law & Cultural Property Database.

Case Summary

Graffman v. Espel

Graffman v. Espel, No. 96 Civ. 8247 (SWK), (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss), mot. for summary judgment granted, (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff’d without opinion sub nom. Graffman v. Doe, 201 F.3d 431 (2d Cir. 1999).

See also: Graffman v. Delecea, No. 96 Civ. 7270 (SWK), (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 1997) on recons. (denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment); aff'd, (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 1997).

In 1992, Sture Hjalmar Graffman, the owner of a painting by Pablo Picasso entitled “Le peintre et son modèle,” consigned the work for sale to Miguel Espel’s company, MTS Minor Trading. Espel sent the work to his brother-in-law, Michael Delecea, a New York art dealer, who found a purchaser for the work through the Avanti Gallery. In 1994, Espel informed Graffman, who was not notified of the sale, that a business associate had sold the work and kept the proceeds. . . .

Click here to subscribe to IFAR's Art Law & Cultural Property Database to access this and other documents about U.S. and international legislation and case law concerning the acquisition, authenticity, export, ownership, and copyright of art objects.