An ex-pal of Madonna urged a Manhattan judge Wednesday to toss a lawsuit filed by the Queen of Pop over an auction of her memorabilia because The Material Girl freely gave away the priciest item — a pair of worn satin panties.
“They weren’t careful, the plaintiff wasn’t careful in bringing these claims,” said Judd Grossman, an attorney for the former friend Darlene Lutz.
“For example the underwear, lot No. 10. There was a handwritten note with hearts and symbols to a boyfriend that said, ‘My underwear for you,’” Grossman told Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Gerald Lebovits.
“My client never had anything to do with that lot,” Grossman argued.
Instead, the convicted drug dealer ex-boyfriend, Peter Shue, has said he consigned the lingerie to online auctioneer Gotta Have It! Collectibles. Yet Madonna is not suing him.
Over the summer Judge Lebovits temporarily yanked 22 items from the July auction pending the conclusion of the case.
Now Madonna’s lawyer, Brendan O’Rourke is only asking the judge to return 19 of those lots including a love letter that the late rapper Tupac Shakur sent the pop superstar in 1995.
O’Rourke conceded that Madonna has no valid claim on her gifted panties.
But, “there’s no doubt that the letter belongs to my client,” he said.
Lutz came across the handwritten missive when she was sorting through a pile of Madonna’s fan mail that ended up in her personal archives.
“She didn’t even realize she had a Tupac letter until 2008 or 2009. She hired an intern who found the letter and voilà a gold mine from Tupac,” O’Rourke said.
“Fast forward…she’s trying to profit by selling letters to [Gotta Have It!]. The letter is worth an estimated $100,000. It wasn’t her letter to sell,” O’Rourke said.
He’s also demanding the return of a checkbook, a hairbrush entangled with Madonna’s locks and a letter from Rosie O’Donnell.
Lutz has said Madonna asked her to store the items after moving out of her Miami home.
“This case is no different than if I asked a friend to hold my things in his attic,” her attorney, Grossman, said.
“They had a falling out 13 years ago. This case is about personal revenge, not property rights,” Grossman told The Post after the hearing.
The judge said he would issue his decision at a later date.