Opinion
May 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
Plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in the purchase and sale of objects of art, alleges conspiracy by the defendants to defraud the plaintiff by requiring it to illegally and improperly pay defendant Auer's a disproportionate share of the moving, packing and storage charges accrued by defendant Auer's with respect to certain pieces of artwork purchased by the plaintiff. The verified complaint further alleges that a general release executed by the plaintiff in favor of defendant Auer's for its packing, moving and storage services was procured by means of economic duress.
Upon examination of the record, we find, as did the IAS court, that neither defendant Auer's refusal to release the artwork in question until it received payment for its services, nor its procurement of plaintiff's general release, constituted economic duress. The plaintiff, in opposing summary judgment, failed to proffer probative, admissible and evidentiary facts establishing that defendant Auer's wrongfully threatened to remain in possession of the artwork unless plaintiff executed and delivered the general release (Edison Stone Corp. v 42nd St. Dev. Corp., 145 A.D.2d 249, 254), or that the ordinary remedy of an action for breach of contract would not adequately redress the alleged wrong (Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., 29 N.Y.2d 124, 131; cf., Sosnoff v Carter, 165 A.D.2d 486).
In any event, the record reveals that the execution of the general release by the plaintiff was the product of a reasonable business decision negotiated in good faith between the parties and their attorneys (Welford Reality v Brause, 93 A.D.2d 758, 759, affd 60 N.Y.2d 623) as demonstrated by plaintiff's repeated failure to seek judicial redress before executing the general release (Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., supra, at 133).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.