Rosenfeld v. Basquiat

78 F.3d 84 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Artist Jean-Michel Basquiat's (D) was remarkable from his rapid rise to fame and premature death at age 27. This was a dispute on whether D contracted to sell three of his paintings to P, an art dealer and plaintiff in the instant action. These artworks were entitled 'Separation of the 'K'' (a diptych), 'Atlas,' and 'Untitled Head.' Their whereabouts -- if indeed they still actually exist -- are unknown. P sued D, as administrator of the estate of his son Jean-Michel, for damages or specific performance of the contract. P testified that she went to D's apartment and while she was there, he agreed to sell her three paintings for $4,000 each and that she picked out the three works. P testified further that D asked for a cash deposit of ten percent; she left his loft and later returned with $1,000 in cash, which she paid him. When she asked for a receipt, he insisted on drawing up a 'contract,' and got down on the floor and wrote it out in crayon on a large piece of paper, remarking that 'someday this contract will be worth money.' P identified a handwritten document listing the three paintings, bearing her signature and that of Dt, which stated: '$12,000 -- $1000 DEPOSIT -- OCT 25 82.' P also testified that she later returned to D's loft to discuss delivery, but D convinced her to wait for at least two years so that he could show the paintings at exhibitions. At the first trial testimony of P's driver corroborated P's story by stating he had been present and participated in the meeting between P and D. A forensic document examiner, testified that the handwritten 'contract' was in D's hand. P was unable to produce photos of the paintings at trial and introduced reconstructions of the works instead. D attempted to show that the alleged contract was a fraud. The jury deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared. At the second trial, P's counsel avoided asking about anything that occurred between her and D. The trial court allowed parts of her former testimony to be read to the jury. The portions read into evidence dealt primarily with the personal transactions allegedly occurring between P and D. D did not object when P's counsel asked to have the testimony read into evidence. The jury found for P with a market value of $395,000. P was awarded interest as well. D appealed.