Chelsea Wine Storage sued again for disposing of customer wine

Another Chelsea lawsuit (see Safe Harbour thread for post about M. Moriarty lawsuit)

You’d think there would be really strict/redundant policies in place regarding notification of storage clients re back fees before “destroying” (or selling) wines.

I’d assume bare minimum would be
emails to every address you have for person (over a period of months)
certified letter to last address
simple google search (Eliza Kwon de Alvarez is not exactly common name, and she seems to have active social media presence) -hard to believe couldn’t contact

1 Like

I’m sure there’s some language dealing with non-payment of storage fees, but holy hell what a mess. SO many other options in this regard, instead of putting oneself into legal jeopardy by disposing of the contents of the locker. One significantly smarter option would have been to ‘seize’ the contents in the store-owned locker (they always have them, for receiving shipments) and not release the contents until paid. Disposing of them is flat out idiocy

I wonder if the storage facility might have sold the wines, as disposal.

Not to mention that they should have client’s phone numbers.

This is really inexcusable behavior

The wine owner should file an insurance claim, for operator theft.

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE A STICKY.

Sheesh.

My recommendation is that every customer immediately check the storage contents----by sight.

Not by smell or sound?

Kudos to my partner Asher Rubinstein, who obtained the original temporary restraining order against Chelsea in the Moriarty case. I would add, “after consulting with me on the legal issues associated with the appropriate requirements for dealing with a warehouseman’s lien claim under the Uniform Commercial Code,” but Asher did all the real work and deserves 100% of the credit.

Good point. The visually impaired would need to do so by touch.

Policies don’t get you very far. On the other hand, express legal requirements in New York impose specific obligations that are the subject of the lawsuit. Let’s just say that the legal papers alleged that Chelsea did some naughty things.

And they’d likely only have a collection of Chapoutier, in that case

Not if Chelsea sold that case too.

Adding insult to injury.

This is why I say “own, don’t rent.” :wink:

champagne.gif



It’s a shame. They were a class operation for a good many years before the current owner.

Jay, dumb legal question; what does the law say about disposing/selling in lieu of payment a (let’s say) $40,000 wine collection to settle a $5,000 debt?

Generally, because the creditor does not own the assets being sold, excess proceeds belong to the debtor, after satisfaction of outstanding debt.

Complicated question. Let’s just say that if I were advising a bank that was holding $40,000 of wine as collateral for a $5,000 loan, I would not advise the bank to blow it out to the first Yellow Tail lover who walks in the door and offers $5,000 for it.