| Friedel Dzubas Painting Was
Actually By His Girlfriend Who Sued Now
Discovery Dispute
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Sept 28 – How much is a
painting mis-attributed to
Abstract Expressionist Friedel
Dzubas but actually by his
one-time girlfriend Marianne
Hicks worth?
And how
does that related to the
Federal court's jurisdictional
threshold of $75,000?
These questions arose in a
civil proceeding on May 8
before U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York Judge Edgardo Ramos,
covered exclusively by Inner
City Press.
Marianne Hicks painted it in
1981, and took it to residence
of then 11-year boyfriend
artist Fridel Dzubas,
ultimately leave it behind.
The
Complaint said this was when
"Dzubas developed Parkinson's
disease" and his "adult
children discouraged him from
continuing his relationship
with [Hicks] and encouraged
him to begin a romantic
relationship with a new
woman." In
the hearing on May 8, this
"new woman" was named, Melinda
(or as the court reporter was
told, Malinda) Hatch.
Years later Marianne Hicks was
browsing an art website and
saw her painting - being sold
as a Dzubas. She tried to
resolve it, ultimately sued
with a 50 page affidavit from
Dzubas' studio assistant
Wesley Frantz.
Leslie Feely Fine Art LLC's
defense is that the value of
the painting would only be of
a Hicks, none of which have
sold. They aruged for
dismissal for failure to reach
the jurisdictional
amount.
Judge
Ramos said that art is "sui
generis," that while he'd
never heard of Marianne Hicks,
he'd also never heard of
Dzubas. So how, he asked, can
he find as a matter of law
that a Hicks is not worth
$75,000?
He noted he
recently read of a Damien
Hirst work being cut up and
the pieces
sold.
Ultimately both sides have
been allowed some discovery,
on the pricing of any sales of
Hicks work, and apparently for
the sale prices of this
painting to John Doe.
On
September 24 Judge Ramos held
a discovery conference in the
case, revolving around the
applicability of Local Rule
33.3 and, again, John Doe.
Inner City Press again covered
it. Leslie Feely Fine Art LLC
is arguing that the
plaintiff's discovery requests
are late, and that it "is not
entitled to John Doe's
identity." But is the press?
The case
is Marianne Hicks v. Leslie
Feely Fine Art, LLC et
al., 20-cv-1991 (Ramos).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
