The holding: "In light of Noland's assertion and a report showing that the work had been damaged and restoration had been performed on it, Sotheby's did not breach the contract or its fiduciary duty to plaintiff by withdrawing the work from auction." (No link yet.) Background here.
UPDATE: More from Art in America's Tracy Zwick. And from Cristina del Rivero, who points out that my original post wasn't as clear as it could have been. This is the claim against Sotheby's, not Noland.