SHE’S SOME EXPERT

Paid $18M for junk

A Manhattan philanthropist who says she was tricked into buying $18 million in cheap knockoff jewelry must be a really lousy art expert, her alleged dupesters claim in court papers.

Embattled jewelry dealers Nisha and Mohit Sabharwal used the defense to counter a Manhattan Supreme Court lawsuit filed against them by Rubin Museum co-founder Shelley Rubin.

“Plaintiff alleges she spent $18 million but took not a single step to confirm the historical significance or provenance of the jewelry, despite being sophisticated in Indian arts,” the Sabharwals say in court papers filed this week. “A sophisticated purchaser has a greater burden of due diligence than the average person,” the documents say.

Rubin, whose Chelsea museum specializes in Himalayan and Indian culture, met Nisha Sabharwal at an Asia Society event in 2009. The 74-year-old collector claims the Indian woman masqueraded as a member of her country’s political elite and discussed the idea of building a “museum quality” jewelry collection.

Rubin amassed more than 300 pieces of what she be- lieved to be a dazzling collection of Asian antiquities, including a Maharaja ring in silver and gold for $14,500 and an emerald Ganesh pendant for $38,000, her suit says.

Five years after her spending spree, Rubin finally had the pieces appraised for insurance purposes in 2015.

She claims she was shocked to learn that she’d spent millions of dollars on dyed stones typically found in tourist bazaars.

The Indian couple adds that if Rubin really thought she was buying true Indian treasures, she would have violated a 1972 law that prohibits the exporting of such items without a permit.

The suit “fails to allege [Rubin] sought any such certificates or documentation from defendants,” the Sabharwals say.

The pair do not address the merits of Rubin’s own claims, and their lawyer did not return calls for comment.

But their motion to dismiss Rubin’s suit says that they told her only that the jewelry they sold her was of “museum quality” and of “considerable value.’’ Such claims cannot be considered fraudulent because they are “general statements of opinion,” the papers say.

A lawyer for Rubin declined to comment.