By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy. We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services.
A painting by French artist Pierre Soulages known as Peinture 161 x 200 cm, 14 novembre 1958, is the subject of a new lawsuit where the plaintiffs allege that it was stolen from their family nearly fifty years ago, as first reported by Crain’s New York. The painting was sold at a Christie’s auction last fall for just under $5 million. As per the Real Deal, the lawsuit states that the Zeckendorfs seek the proceeds from the sale but not the artwork itself.
The Christie’s sale was part of an auction of the estate of Patricia G. Ross Weis and Robert F. Weis, who founded the Weis Markets grocery chain. Their children Jennifer Weis, Colleen Ross Weis, and Jonathan Weis, are listed as defendants in the suit. The complaint lists William Lie Zeckendorf, Arthur W. Zeckendorf, James Nicholson, and Leslie Nicholson, as the plaintiffs, all of whom belong to the Zeckendorf family: a real estate dynasty responsible for buildings such as 15 Central Park West and One Union Square East (also known as the Zeckendorf Towers).
Christie’s has listed Marion Zeckendorf, as having purchased the painting in 1959. Following her death in 1968, the painting reportedly passed into her estate, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege that the painting was stolen following the death of the family’s patriarch, William Zeckendorf Sr. in 1977. The provenance notes that it was then sold by Gimpel and Weitzenhoffer Gallery in New York to the Weis family in 1984.
The lawsuit also contested a gray-colored invoice from Niveau Gallery—which once operated in New York— dated to 1984 that the Weis family presented as proof of their ownership, noting that it is the wrong color, since the gallery switched to issuing blue invoices in 1961. “If there was a consignment to Niveau Gallery, it was by a thief or the successor in interest to a thief,” reads the complaint.
A Christie’s spokesperson told Artnews that the auction house “was aware of and resolved this issue ahead of the sale. Title of this artwork passed to the buyer, and any remaining financial dispute does not concern Christie’s or its sale.”
Facts Only
* Painting: Peinture 161 x 200 cm by Pierre Soulages, 1958.
* Lawsuit plaintiffs: William Lie Zeckendorf, Arthur W. Zeckendorf, James Nicholson, and Leslie Nicholson (Zeckendorf family).
* Defendants in suit: Jennifer Weis, Colleen Ross Weis, and Jonathan Weis.
* Painting sold at Christie’s auction last fall for under $5 million.
* Auction was part of the estate sale of Patricia G. Ross Weis and Robert F. Weis.
* Christie’s spokesperson stated they resolved the issue before the sale and are not responsible for remaining financial disputes.
* Marion Zeckendorf allegedly purchased the painting in 1959.
* Plaintiffs allege the painting was stolen following William Zeckendorf Sr.'s death in 1977.
* Provenance notes the painting was sold by Gimpel and Weitzenhoffer Gallery to the Weis family in 1984.
* The complaint contested a gray-colored invoice from Niveau Gallery dated 1984 presented by the Weis family as proof of ownership.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative hinges on the tension between documented provenance and an allegation of theft, mediated by legal proceedings and institutional assurances. The conflict involves artifacts of wealth—a high-value artwork and real estate dynasties—suggesting that disputes over ownership often become entangled with disputes over historical property claims. The contested invoice serves as a specific locus of dispute, shifting the focus from mere possession to authenticity and legality across different transactional periods. The statement from Christie’s operates as an institutional shield, attempting to isolate itself from the core factual dispute concerning the artwork's origin or theft. This suggests a pattern where high-value commercial transactions create layers of contested history; the art itself is one object within a larger structure of family wealth and property claims. The lack of detail regarding the mechanism of the alleged theft versus the subsequent sales raises questions about how historical ownership is validated in the absence of unbroken documentation, forcing an evaluation of what constitutes legitimate title when institutional actors intervene to manage the outcome rather than adjudicate the underlying claim.
Bridge Questions: What verifiable evidence exists regarding the timeline and circumstances surrounding William Zeckendorf Sr.'s death and the alleged theft? How does the distinction between seeking proceeds and seeking the artwork itself influence the perception of the dispute's ultimate goals? What historical precedents exist for how provenance disputes are resolved in high-value art litigation involving layered ownership claims?