Legs Linger in Legal Limbo

[caption id="attachment_45795" align="alignright" width="376"] Larry Rivers' "Legs" sculpture at the Madison Street property of Janet Lehr and Ruth Vered.[/caption]

By Douglas Feiden

It was on November 4, 2015 that a state Supreme Court justice ruled that Sag Harbor had acted properly in seeking the removal of the “Legs” sculpture from the Henry Street side of the Madison Street home of Janet Lehr and Ruth Vered.

As the one-year anniversary of that decision arrives on Friday, the sassy, mixed-media Larry Rivers art piece — a pair of disembodied, 16-foot-tall, white fiberglass, female legs clad in sexy, black-band stockings visible at upper-thigh level — is still defiantly standing.

The mannequin-style work, which arrived in the historic district in 2008, attracted renewed attention in October when a documentary recounting the saga, “Legs: A Big Issue in a Small Town," screened at the Hamptons International Film Festival.

“Just the other day, I was taking a shower and I was wrapped up in a towel, and I looked out the window and saw a couple taking a selfie in front of the Legs,” Ms. Lehr said. “It happens all the time, and I thought, ‘Larry would be laughing in his grave.’”

But for all the global headlines sparked by the artsy, racy, quirky and provocative limbs — for all the debate they ignited about art in public places and a village’s right to enforce its laws and code — one abiding mystery remains: What happens next?

Over two weeks, The Sag Harbor Express endeavored to answer that question. The newspaper’s efforts, ultimately, were unsuccessful.

Village officials referred questions to two attorneys who didn’t respond to a dozen-plus calls and emails over eight days. The owners of the Legs referred inquiries to a third lawyer. He didn’t return five messages in five days. Principals wouldn’t address the legal case or other procedural options and refused to discuss the Legs’ future.

“These things often die of their own weight,” said Ms. Lehr, who was referring to past talk about removing the sculpture. “But this one did not die,” she added cryptically, declining to elaborate.

Is Ms. Lehr pursuing an appeal or other legal remedies? “There’s more than one course of action,” she said. What might that be? “I don’t think it’s smart to say,” she replied.

Ms. Vered was even more elliptical. “It’s in the process,” she said. What process? “I don’t want to talk about it,” she said.

The story tracks to 2010, two years after the Legs were installed. Ms. Lehr and Ms. Vered applied for a building permit, which was denied, and then turned to the village’s Zoning Board of Appeals to seek variances that would let them keep the sculpture in place. They were rejected in 2012.

In its ruling, the ZBA deemed the sculpture a “structure” that could be removed under the village code, rather than an artwork, because it wasn’t set back from the property line. The two women filed suit against the village, arguing Legs was a piece of art and regulating it under zoning codes impinged on their freedom of expression.

State Supreme Court Justice James Hudson disagreed. In his decision a year ago, he upheld the ZBA’s 2012 ruling that the sculpture was a structure and should be treated as such under the village code, rather than an artwork.

That means it can be taken down. The village hasn’t moved to enforce the action, and one trustee said such a step is not “high on the hit parade.” The owners never filed an appeal, though the clock may be ticking.

[caption id="attachment_46827" align="alignleft" width="495"] Documentary filmmakers Jennifer Brooke and Beatrice Alden in front of the "Legs" statue. Their film screened at Bay Street in Sag Harbor as part of the Hamptons International Film Festival. Michael Heller photo[/caption]

Typically, an appeal, or a “notice of appeal,” would be filed within a year of a judge’s ruling, though the exact cut-off date depends on the timetable of certain court filings, like a “notice of entry of judgment,” which the parties aren’t discussing publicly.

Village Attorney David Gilmartin Jr. didn’t return multiple calls and emails and never responded to questions. Brian Lester, the village’s special counsel in the Legs case, similarly didn’t return multiple messages, nor did paralegal Maxa Luppi.

Mayor Sandra Schroeder and Village Clerk Beth Kamper had referred calls to the lawyers.

Numerous messages for Stephen Grossman, who represents the owners, were never returned. Ms. Lehr, who said she’d be meeting with him shortly, had referred calls to him.

There are no Legs-related matters now pending with the village board, but eventually, the burden would be on the trustees to decide if they want to enforce the action. All five of them were polled as to what they’d do and appeared evenly divided.

“I would like to see them leave,” Ms. Schroeder said. “My position has not changed. I’m all for art, but that’s not where you put art. They didn’t ask for permission. And they lost in court.”

The mayor said she sometimes wonders, “What would happen if we sent a ladder truck from our Fire Department to take them down? … But that’s just Sandra’s opinion.”

Trustee Ed Deyermond also said nothing had changed his view that the structure should be removed. “I’m 100% supportive of the organization, meaning the village and its various boards, that have already ruled on this,” he said.

Ken O'Donnell had a different take. “Just one man’s humble opinion, but I would tend to think of it as art,” the trustee said.

“I have absolutely no problem with the Legs,” said James Larocca, who stressed that was his private opinion. “Should it come before the trustees, I would apply the law as it exists to this case.”

Robby Stein said he’d decide if the matter comes before the board, adding, “It’s very straightforward: They are a structure and they are art, both are true. If you just stick to the code, they have to come down. If you change the code to incorporate art, that’s something different.”