From: kenneth wayne peralta (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 13:41:28 PST
(tr.v.) 1. To refuse to accept or recognize; reject.
2. To put (a claim or action) out of court without further hearing.
i also attended judge eve premingerıs hearings on the state of new york v.
the plaster foundation inc. on 30-jan, and i take issue with othersı
wholesale dismissals of nick zeddıs posting as biased and false as it
relates to his recounting of the hearings.
the judge heard the pf inc.ıs motion to dismiss the efforts of the new york
public administrator to recover jack smithıs archive (at the request of
jackıs sister), based on the argument the request was beyond the statute of
limitations.
peter schram (attorney for the ny public administrator) argued that jackıs
sister et. al. rightfully acknowledged the pf inc. as stewards for the
archive, themselves not having the wherewithal to manage the complexity of
promoting jack smithıs legacy, and that they began taking steps to remove
the pf inc. as archive managers only after they learned of individual art
pieces being sold on the side.
the pf inc. motion to dismiss was filed in response to the judge premingerıs
7-july-03 order to show cause why the court should not execute its order
that the pf inc. turn over jack smithıs archive to his family.
among judge premingerıs orders on 30-jan was an order for the pf inc. to
comply with a discovery motion initiated by the public administrator. as
such, presumably discussions of rental fees, flow of funds, etc. posted to
this list will be satisfied in the public record after compliance with the
judgeıs orders.
standing next to the pf inc.ıs attorney for this hearing was mary dorman, an
attorney and director of the pf inc.. the judge did not allow her to speak
because she did not follow simple court procedure by filing a form in
advance of the hearing, not because the opposing counsel was formerly her
clerk as implied in j.hobermanıs post.
my specific notes taken during the hearing are listed below. this account
is, of course, limited by my own recordation and recollection of the facts.
interested parties will request a transcript of the hearing by contacting
the surrogate court at 31 chambers street in manhattan (at centre). i
believe the cost about $15.00. also, the records room on the fifth floor
has a complete case history for this matter, including over a decade of
correspondence between the slater family and the pf inc. interested parties
can also review these documents, which are eye opening. the case number is
2411/91.
kenneth wayne peralta
producer, locusta penguina
30-jan-04 notes from jack smith estate hearing
judge preminger opened by saying the circumstances in this case were very
unusual. she later amended that this was the most unusual case to be
brought into her chambers, and that she did not understand the legal theory
being put forward by the pf inc.
counsel for pf inc. said they first asserted ownership when j.hoberman wrote
to sue and michael slater, saying they would like to take the work they
³abandoned² so it could be preserved in a non-profit. he went on to say
that she abandoned and was disinterested in the work because she was
homophobic and didnıt want her son to be tainted by it.
judge preminger responded saying (this is paraphrased from my notes) right,
but you asked for her consent to transfer the items to a non-profit. why
were you asking consent if you owned it? how did you get the rights? she
was allowing you to champion his work, but you canıt suddenly own it because
she didnıt like his homosexuality.ı
mary dormand asked to speak, schram objected, and the judge disallowed her
because she did not file the proper paperwork to do so in advance.
the judge said a few times there has been no evidence that there was an
assertion of title by the pf inc. at any time prior to last year. she also
said that it doesnıt mean that the family abandoned the work because they
let the public administrator take care of matters.
schram stated opposing counsel was putting forward a revisionist history of
what actually happened, and that the family always thought of the pf inc. as
managers of the archive, until they learned of art being sold from the
archive in individual pieces. he then read an excerpt from a letter from
michael slater (jackıs nephew) written to j.hoberman that supported his
argument.
judge preminger said she agreed, and had read the papers.
schram then said the statute of limitations argument, put forward by pf inc.
counsel, did not apply because the 3 year statute begins only at the time
there was an assertion on title by another party.
pf inc. counsel referenced a previous case where the statute of limitations
applied. schram said yes, but the statute only applies from the time there
is awareness there has been a claim on copyright title. judge preminger
responded (paraphrased) i agree. you canıt just suddenly decide you own an
asset.ı the pf inc. counsel again began to make their argument for the
works being abandoned by the family, to which the judge responded ³alright,
enough! motion denied.²
schram then said there is an outstanding motion for discovery from the pf
inc. that had been held up pending this hearing. judge preminger ordered
the pf inc. to comply.
the whole affair ran about 20 minutes.
###
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.