David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Son
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-02614
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Galerie Son, Judge Rearden adopted the recommendation and entered a $320,000 judgment plus interest, fees, and costs.
David Benrimon Fine Art LLC received a monetary judgment. Galerie Son, Mihyun Son, and Max Koffler are subject to the judgment, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, and the case was closed after judgment.
What happened
In David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Galerie Son, the plaintiff sued Galerie Son, Mihyun Son, and Max Koffler over alleged breach of contract and conversion. After the defendants failed to defend, the clerk entered defaults, and a magistrate judge recommended damages and other amounts.
No defendant objected to that recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none, adopting it in full.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered judgment for $320,000 in compensatory damages, nine-percent yearly interest from March 28, 2023, $83,524 in attorneys’ fees, $2,886.37 in costs, and post-judgment interest. The court directed the clerk to close the case after judgment was entered.
The detailed version
- David Benrimon Fine Art LLC v. Son · No. 1:23-cv-02614
- Rearden
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
David Benrimon Fine Art LLC sued Galerie Son, Mihyun Son, and Max Koffler. The complaint asserted, among other claims, breach of contract against Galerie Son and conversion against all defendants. The opinion states that the parties reached a partial settlement concerning one of the two artworks involved, and that the plaintiff therefore sought only a partial default judgment.
The plaintiff served the defendants, and the Clerk of Court entered a Certificate of Default as to all defendants on May 30, 2024. The plaintiff then moved for default judgment. The court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who conducted an inquest and issued a Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2025.
Review of the Recommendation
The Report and Recommendation proposed an award of $320,000 in compensatory damages, nine-percent-per-year prejudgment interest on those damages beginning March 28, 2023, $83,524 in attorneys’ fees, $2,886.37 in costs, and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The Report and Recommendation warned the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. The defendants filed no objections and did not request more time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error—the court’s standard for determining whether the record plainly showed a mistake. It found no clear error and described the recommendation as well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court awarded the plaintiff judgment consisting of $320,000 in compensatory damages; prejudgment interest at nine percent per year accruing from March 28, 2023; $83,524 in attorneys’ fees; $2,886.37 in costs; and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) on the full judgment amount.
The plaintiff was ordered to serve the order on each defendant by October 30, 2025, and file an affidavit confirming service. After judgment was entered, the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. Because the judgment followed the defendants’ defaults rather than an adversarial merits determination, this summary classifies the order as a procedural order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.