Photo by Andrew Goldstein

The beleaguered Salander O'Reilly Galleries was closed indefinitely by court order on October 19.

Courtesy the Indianapolis Museum of Art

The Indianapolis Museum of Art requested that Caravaggio's "Sleeping Cupid" (c. 1595–1596), be returned.

Georgia O'Keeffe Titian Marsden Hartley Charles Sheeler Edouard Manet Botticelli Caravaggio Donatello

Send a letter to the Editor

Save to Del.icio.us Digg this

Aug. 7, 2007 – Citing news reports of Salander-O’Reilly’s legal problems, Curtis Squire and Curtis Galleries, Inc. file a lawsuit seeking the repayment of $3.8 million in loans made over 12 years, a full distribution of the profits due under the 50 percent partnership agreement, and $3.5 million still unpaid for the O’Keeffe (which Lawrence Salander sold in violation of their agreement), plus interest, attorney’s fees, and further damages to be established at trial. According to the suit, Curtis Squire withdraws from its partnership with Salander-O’Reilly effective Oct. 25, 2007.

Aug. 13, 2007 – Former New York Observer publisher Arthur Carter, whose sculptures have been represented by Salander-O’Reilly, requests a summary judgment that the gallery repay him $1.2 million in loaned money, plus interest. The motion is made through Carter’s company, Utilities & Industries Management Corp.

Sept. 2007 – Ursus Books and Prints, an Upper East Side purveyor of rare art books, sues the gallery for $315,000 owed from purchases between 2004 and 2005. (2)

Sept. 21, 2007 – Fulton Landing, Inc., a Brooklyn-based home improvement company, sues Lawrence Salander and his wife for $98,093 (plus interest) that is unpaid from a $472,481 renovation job on their 82nd Street residence. In the same suit, Timothy Crowley, a contractor at Fulton Landing, demands that the Salanders repay a $70,000 loan he made them, plus interest. The case will return to court on Dec. 14.

Sept. 24, 2007 – After Saundra B. Lane tells the Massachusetts court that Lawrence Salander did not comply with a court order to turn over all of the collateral she was owed—she said in July that the Sheeler painting, for instance, had been “sold or otherwise disposed of”—the judge rules in her favor, awarding her $4.3 million. (2), (1)

Sept. 24, 2007 – Renaissance Art Investors initiates a lawsuit against the gallery seeking $42,197,660, punitive damages of $10 million, and the return of its art.  

Oct. 2007 – John McEnroe asks the court to have Lawrence Salander immediately pay him the $125,000 he says he is owed from his investment in the Hartley painting. The court rules that the “in-artfully drafted” agreement fails to state clearly when payments were due and that the matter will have to go to trial for a judgment. (2)

Oct. 2007 – Galleria d’Arte Benucci, a Rome gallery, alerts the New York Supreme Court that it is owed $6.65 million for art purchases Salander-O’Reilly made in 2005. In a letter, Benucci’s lawyer says that Lawrence Salander attempted to pay the debt with artworks that he did not own, and that the Rome gallery attached Salander’s assets in Italy in May 2007. (3)

Oct. 3, 2007 – Having discovered that Lawrence Salander sold her art “virtually immediately” after she stored it at his gallery, Carol F. Cohen sues Salander and the gallery for either the return of her art or $3.6 million plus $7.2 million in damages, legal fees, and interest. 

Oct. 11, 2007 – To settle a lawsuit filed by Renaissance Art Investors, Triple S Management, and Old Master Properties—seeking $42,197,660, punitive damages of $10 million, and the return of their art—Lawrence Salander offers to let the Renaissance Art take 642 works from the gallery. Days later, a number of attorneys tell the court that their clients own some of the works; others cite previous judgments preventing the gallery from divesting itself of art. A lawyer for First Republic Bank says that his client has “a lien on all of Salander-O’Reilly’s assets.” (2)

Oct. 11, 2007 – American Express sues Lawrence Salander and the gallery for $698,013 in unpaid credit card charges. Bank of America sues Salander and his wife for defaulting on a $2 million loan. (2)

Oct. 15, 2007 – In response to a suit Roy Lennox filed in August, accusing Lawrence Salander and his gallery of operating "nothing more than an illegal Ponzi scheme" and demanding $4,629,480.50 plus $10 million in punitive damages, the dealer agrees to give Lennox six artworks and a library of rare art books, with money and jewelry added if the library is found to be worth less than $1 million. Meanwhile, in the case of Renaissance Art Investors , which now claims it owns all of Salander-O'Reilly's Renaissance art, the investment group is told that it can take 642 works from the gallery. However, competing claims on Salander's assets tie up the agreements. A number of attorneys tell the court that their clients own some of the works specified; other cite previous judgments preventing the gallery from divesting itself of any art. A lawyer for First Republic Bank says that his client has "a lien on all of Salander-O'Reilly's assets." (2)