Specific performance is unavailable where there is an adequate remedy at law (see, T.F. Demilo Corp. v. E.K. Constr. Co., 207 A.D.2d 480). "The point at which breach of a contract will be redressable by specific performance * * * must lie not in any inherent physical uniqueness of the property but instead in the uncertainty of valuing it" (see, Van Wagner Adv. Corp. v. S M Enters., 67 N.Y.2d 186, 193). Here, there has been no demonstration that the subject painting is not susceptible of reasonably certain valuation.
In other respects, the motion court properly found a question of fact as to agency (see, Health-Loom Corp. v. Soho Plaza Corp., 272 A.D.2d 179, 182). Regardless of whether there is evidence of an objective manifestation of actual authority (see, Maurillo v. Park Slope U-Haul, 194 A.D.2d 142, 146), there are questions of fact as to whether or not the reliance by plaintiff's principals on the appearance of authority was reasonable (see, Arol Dev. Corp. v. Whitman Ransom, 215 A.D.2d 145, 146), and the extent to which they were obliged to inquire into the scope of the putative agent's authority (see, Edwards v. N. Am. Van Lines, 129 A.D.2d 869, 870).
The cause of action for conversion was properly dismissed (see,Interstate Adjusters, Inc. v. First Fid. Bank, N.A., 251 A.D.2d 232, 234). Since we are denying both sides' motions for summary judgment as to liability, we do not reach any damages issue. We have considered both sides' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.