Knoedler, the Gift that Keeps Giving

Fellow appraiser Xwil, ASA sent me a post about ex Knoedler president Ann Freedman who is now suing a fellow gallerist for defamation.

The report states that Freedman is suing Marco Grassi, owner of Grassi Studios in New York, who is a known expert on old master paintings.  Grassi made comments about a lack of due diligence by Knoedler in the New York magazine, and is now suing for defamation. If Grassi was stating known facts, then defamation would not apply, and if Freedman should be considered a public figure, then the standard is much higher to prove.

The Center for Art Law reports

In an interesting twist, Freedman is now suing for defamation. A recent article about Ms. Freedman in New York magazine (available here) precipitated the defamation suit against another gallery owner quoted in the article. In the article by James Panero, a gallery owner named Marco Grassi is quoted as saying:

"This has ruined one of the greatest galleries in the world. It has trashed a lot of people’s money. It seems to me Ms. Freedman was totally irresponsible, and it went on for years,” said Marco Grassi, owner of Grassi Studios gallery on the Upper East Side and a well-known expert on Old Master paintings. “Imagine people coming to someone and saying every painting you sold me is a fake. It is an unthinkable situation. It is completely insane. A gallery person has an absolute responsibility to do due diligence, and I don’t think she did it. The story of the paintings is so totally kooky. I mean, really. It was a great story and she just said, ‘this is great.’"

In the complaint, filed last week in New York County Supreme Court, Ms. Freedman describes in great detail the efforts she undertook to establish the authenticity of the Rosales paintings, and she names many of the important art world experts who expressed confidence that the works were genuine. In conclusion, Freedman states that she had no reason to doubt that the works were authentic.

It is an elementary principle of defamation law that for a statement to be actionable, it must be a statement of fact, capable of being proven true or false.  Generally, statements of pure opinion, so long as they are based upon publicly available facts, cannot be the basis of a defamation claim. Moreover, if the plaintiff is a public figure, that is, someone who has taken a position with respect to a matter which is the subject of widespread interest, or who has voluntarily thrust herself into a matter of controversy, then the standard is much higher, because of the First Amendment rights of the speaker. In that case, the plaintiff must prove that the statements were made either with knowledge that they were false, or that the publisher had serious doubts that they were true but went ahead anyway.  This has been settled law ever since the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Source: Center for Art Law