FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/27/2016

Transcription

1 FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/27/ PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF 10/27/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK x JOHN WOODWAR, KRISTINE WOODWARD and G.O.L.A. d/b/a WOODWARD GALLERY -against- Plaintiffs, NIRA LEVINE and NLR UNLIMITED, INC., Defendants. Index No. COMPLAINT x Plaintiffs John Woodward, Kristine Woodward and G.O.L.A. d/b/a Woodward Gallery ( the Woodward Gallery ), by and through their attorneys, Roberts & Roberts, 401 Broadway, New York, New York complaining of the defendant, hereby allege as follows AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT 1. The plaintiff JOHN WOODWARD is, at all times herein mentioned, an individual, the husband of the plaintiff Kristine Woodward, a resident of New York County, New York and the Director of the plaintiff the Woodward Gallery, which is located at 133 Eldridge Street, New York, New York The plaintiff KRISTINE WOODWARD is, at all times herein mentioned, an individual, the wife of the plaintiff John Woodward, a resident of New York County, New York and the Vice-President of the plaintiff the Woodward Gallery, which is located at 133 Eldridge Street, New York, New York. 1 of 5

2 3. The plaintiff the WOODWARD GALLERY is, at all times herein mentioned, a New York corporation with a principal place of business at 133 Eldridge Street, New York, New York The defendant NIRA LEVINE is, at all times herein mentioned, a resident of the State of Oregon, who regularly transacts art-related business in New York County, New York and the registered agent and the spokesperson of the defendant, NLR Unlimited, Inc. 5. The defendant NLR UNLIMITED, INC. is, at all times herein mentioned, an Oregon corporation, which regularly transacts art-related business in New York County, New York. 6. Pursuant to CPLR 503, venue is proper in this County because the individual plaintiffs reside in this County and the corporate plaintiff, the Woodward Gallery, has its principal place of business at 133 Eldridge Street, New York, NY On or about June 30, 2016, the defendants filed a Verified Petition and Order to Show Cause for pre-litigation discovery pursuant to CPLR 3102(c). The Petition included allegations concerning the Woodward Gallery s sale of some 45 Andy Warhol Spacefruit prints to the defendants in Significantly, at that time the defendants filed the Verified Petition and Order to Show Cause, they were in possession of Certificates of Authenticity issued by the Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board ( AWAAB ) pertaining to each and every print they had purchased. Indeed, the defendant Nira Levine admitted in 25 of the Verified Petition that she was in possession of said certificates. 9. Subsequently, on or about July 1, 2016, the defendant Nira Levine, acting individually and as a spokesperson for the defendant NLR Unlimited, Inc., was interviewed by 2 2 of 5

3 Julia Marsh of The New York Post. As a result of that interview, on July 1, 2016, The New York Post published, in its print and online editions, a false and defamatory headline in large, bold letters regarding the plaintiffs that falsely stated, Gallery sold Warhol prints with doctored documents lawsuit. The article further falsely states, An 85-year-old Oregon woman says a prominent Manhattan art gallery doctored authenticity documents to dupe her into overpaying for 90 Andy Warhol prints and now she s suing the Lower East Side dealers to find out if she was fleeced on another 50 pieces by modern masters like Pablo Picasso and Keith Haring. The article further identified the 85-year-old woman as Nira Levine, the gallery involved as the Woodward Gallery, and Kristine Woodward as a principal of the Woodward Gallery. These false statements constituted libel per se committed against the plaintiffs. 10. On July 4, 2016, in its online edition, Artforum, a very influential publication in the art world, published an article on the defendants claims, which falsely stated, The Warhol Authentication Board also informed her that sixty-three of the works she had copurchased were fakes. This false statement constituted libel per se committed against the plaintiffs. 11. On July 4, 2016, in its online edition, artnetnews, another art world publication, published a false and defamatory headline in large, bold letters regarding the plaintiffs that stated, Manhattan Gallery Faces Lawsuit Over Fake Warhol Prints. This false statement constituted libel per se committed against the plaintiffs. 12. On July 5, 2016, in its online edition, Art Review, another art world publication, published a false and defamatory headline in large, bold letters regarding the plaintiffs that stated, Collector sues Woodward Gallery over Andy Warhol fakes. This false statement constituted libel per se committed against the plaintiffs. 3 3 of 5

4 13. Since the defendant was in possession of the genuine Certificates of Authenticity pertaining to her prints, which were issued by the AWAAB, at the time she made the abovementioned statements, she knew, or should have known, these statements were false before same were published. 14. The defendants instituted a judicial proceeding alleging false and defamatory charges and then circulated communications based thereon maliciously calculated to damage plaintiffs business and their professional reputations. Therefore, the privilege pursuant to Civil Rights Law 74 is inapplicable here. 15. The defendants unlawful conduct was knowing, malicious, willful and wanton and/or showed a reckless disregard for the plaintiffs rights, which has caused, and continues to cause, the plaintiffs damage to their business, disgrace, humiliation and shame throughout the world, and permanent harm to their professional and personal reputations. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against the defendants, containing the following relief 1. An award of damages, plus prejudgment interest, in the amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10, ) to compensate the plaintiffs for all monetary and/or economic harm, and all harm to their personal and professional reputations and damage to their careers; 2. An award of punitive damages; 3. An award of costs that the plaintiffs have incurred in this action, as well as the plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees to the fullest extent permitted by law; and 4. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated New York, New York October 27, of 5

5 Yours, etc. ROBERTS & ROBERTS, ESQS. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 401 Broadway New York, N.Y (212) of 5