Who Wants To Buy Madonna’s Panties?

A dispute between Madonna and a former friend has been resolved in the friend’s favor by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department.

We don’t often cite to TMZ

Madonna had no right to get a restraining order against her former friend who was on the verge of auctioning off a letter Tupac wrote the singer, and the former friend is asking a judge to unblock the sale.

Darlene Lutz — Madge’s former art consultant and friend — filed docs saying she and Madonna settled a very bitter dispute back in 2004 … and part of the deal was that Darlene gave Madonna cash and in return Madge agreed never to go after Darlene for anything.

Madonna essentially says Darlene stole the letter, along with other personal items including panties and letters to and about various celebrities.

Lutz says in her new docs, filed by attorney Judd Grossman, that the material wasn’t private since Madonna mailed the panties to a former BF. Darlene says, “If Madonna truly wanted privacy, then mailing her lingerie was not the way to go.”

As we reported … Madonna got a judge to block the auction, which has since removed the items from its website.

Darlene wants that order thrown out so auction can go ahead as planned.

The court

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from auctioning off certain personal property allegedly belonging to her, which defendant Darlene Lutz acquired by virtue of her former friendship with plaintiff and consigned to defendant online auction house and its principals for sale. Plaintiff asserts claims for conversion and replevin against defendants.

The court correctly dismissed the complaint as against Lutz because plaintiff’s claims of conversion and replevin against Lutz are barred by the very broad release in the 2004 settlement agreement between plaintiff and Lutz. Even if both claims did not technically accrue by the date of the release, they both arose “by reason of any event, transaction or other relationship or cause” occurring before then – i.e., the transfer of plaintiff’s property to Lutz, which indisputably occurred before 2004.

The court also properly dismissed the complaint as against the auction house defendants. As we have found that Lutz, and not plaintiff, is the rightful owner of the personal property at issue based on the 2004 settlement agreement, Lutz was free to do with the property as she wished, which included consigning the property to the auction house defendants for sale. As plaintiff no longer owns the property, she may not maintain claims for conversion and replevin against the auction house defendants (see Colavito v New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 NY3d 43, 50 [2006]; Solomon R. Guggenheim Found v Lubell, 77 NY2d 311, 317 [1991]).

Additionally, we find that the motion court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. The new allegations asserted in the amended complaint do not change the determination that the property at issue does not belong to plaintiff and thus, she cannot maintain claims for conversion and replevin against defendants.

(Mike Frisch)