State v. Wright Hepburn Webster Gallery, Ltd.
314 N.Y.S.2d 661, 1970 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1293, 64 Misc. 2d 423 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The sale of art created "in the style of" a master artist, but truthfully signed by the actual creator, does not constitute a public nuisance merely because of the speculative possibility that a future owner might alter the work to commit fraud. To be enjoinable as a public nuisance, an activity must pose an actual or imminent injury to public rights, not just the potential for a future private wrong.
Facts:
- David Stein, who was previously convicted for counterfeiting art and grand larceny, created a series of paintings mimicking the styles of famous artists such as Chagall, Picasso, and Matisse.
- Unlike his prior criminal forgeries, Stein signed these new paintings with his own name, "Stein, D.".
- The Wright Hepburn Webster Gallery, Ltd. began exhibiting approximately 68 of these paintings for sale in its New York gallery.
- The gallery advertised the exhibit with a window sign stating "Forgeries by Stein" and used promotional materials that clearly indicated the paintings were by Stein "in the style of" the masters.
- The Attorney-General contended that Stein's signature could easily be removed by a future purchaser, who could then fraudulently pass the work off as an original by a master artist.
Procedural Posture:
- The Attorney-General of New York, on behalf of the State, filed an action in the New York Supreme Court, a trial-level court of general jurisdiction.
- The State's complaint sought to declare the paintings a public nuisance, enjoin their sale, and appoint a permanent receiver.
- The Attorney-General applied for a preliminary order to appoint a receiver for the paintings pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
- The court issued an order to show cause which temporarily restrained the defendant gallery from transferring the paintings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the public exhibition and sale of paintings created by a convicted forger "in the style of" famous masters, but bearing his own signature, constitute a public nuisance that can be enjoined by the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold L. Fein, J.
No. The public exhibition and sale of these paintings does not constitute a public nuisance. A court of equity will not enjoin an activity based on the mere possibility or suspicion of a future crime by a third party. To qualify as a public nuisance, the activity must be shown to cause an actual or imminent injury to the public's enjoyment of common rights, such as endangering public health or safety. The harm alleged here—that someone might fraudulently alter the paintings in the future—is speculative and relates to a potential private wrong, not an existing public one. Since the paintings are honestly advertised and signed by Stein, their current sale involves no deception and does not meet the legal standard for a public nuisance that the state can abate.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a high bar for classifying commercial goods as a public nuisance, reinforcing the distinction between actual public harm and speculative future wrongs. It clarifies that the potential for a legally-created product to be misused by a third party is insufficient grounds for the state to enjoin its sale under nuisance law. The ruling protects an artist's right to create and sell works, even if their style is imitative, as long as there is no active deception about authorship. This precedent requires the state to prove a concrete, existing, or imminent public injury rather than relying on speculation about potential future criminal acts.
