Alec Baldwin’s Lawsuit Against Mary Boone Heads to Trial

Boone maintains the actor knew what he was buying.

Alec Baldwin. Photo: ANGELA WEISS/AFP/Getty Images.

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled on Thursday that Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit against Mary Boone can proceed.

Baldwin alleges that the $190,000 Ross Bleckner painting he bought from Boone’s eponymous gallery in 2010 is not the painting she delivered. Six years later he realized that she sold him a different work from the artist’s “Sea and Mirror” series.

Boone’s attorney Ted Poretz of law firm Zukerman Gore Brandeis & Crossman sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the case had expired under the statute of limitations. However, the judge ruled that he could not determine whether it was too late to bring a lawsuit based on the court filings, and said that this determination must be made by a jury.

The judge dismissed the more egregious second count brought by Baldwin’s legal team under section 349 of New York General Business Law, which governs deceptive acts and unlawful practices.

Mary Boone maintins that Baldwin knew what he was buying. Photo: Nicholas Hunt/Getty Images.

Speaking to artnet News on the telephone, Poretz said he was optimistic that the jury would side with his client. “We obtained the dismissal of half of the case and we are confident the jury will dismiss the rest,” he said.

Baldwin reportedly coveted the painting in question—Sea and Mirror (1996)—since seeing it on a flyer for one of Bleckner’s exhibitions. He missed out on the painting when it sold at Sotheby’s for $121,000 in 2007. Three years later he approached Boone to inquire whether the collector would consider selling the work. Boone got back to Baldwin with word that the collector would be open to a sale, albeit at a premium, in addition to a fee for the gallery.

Baldwin eventually paid $190,000 for the work. Six years later he believed he had been misled, claiming in the lawsuit that the work Boone sold him was allegedly completed in 2010, but dated 1996.

New York Daily News reported the dealer offered to buy back the painting, which the actor turned down. The case continues.


Follow artnet News on Facebook:


Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

Share