And girl is pissed.

SJP had 40 dresses selected for various Sex and the City premieres, and worse this Nina Ricci gown, designed by Olivier Theyskens, to the New York debut. She was assured it was the first time it had been worn by anyone in public. Except it wasn't. [OTR]

Last month, socialite and Vogue intern Lauren (Davis) Santo Domingo worse the dress to the Met ball. And Theyskens went with her. And there were photographs, as there often are at those type of things.

"What bothered Parker was that she felt she had been deceived by both Grauso and Theyskens, who met her in the studio and assured her that the dress had never been worn except for magazine shoots," writes Cathy Horyn. "Parker says she remarked to Theyskens during the fitting that she was surprised the dress hadn’t been worn before. He assured her it hadn’t."

And also: That Theyskens actually thought he'd get away with it.

Mario Grauso, the president of the fashion division at Puig, which owns Nina Ricci, tries explaining it away this way:

When I spoke to Grauso, he said, “I’m upset that she’s upset.” He explained that when Parker and her stylist asked if the dress had been photographed, he had no reason to mention Santo Domingo, a socialite who worked at Vogue and who recently had her wedding photographed for the magazine. “Is Lauren a celebrity?” Grauso said. “It depends on how you look at it.” He said he and Theyskens mainly thought of her as a friend. He then asked—somewhat incredulously, I thought—“Does everybody look at Style.com?” Santo Domingo’s picture (with Theyskens) appears on the site for the Met.

Hah.

So why is Parker so upset? Not because a designer dared lie to her, but because she's worried about consumer spending.

“In the big picture, this is not important, but there is a relationship between the entertainment industry and fashion,” Parker said on Thursday evening, adding. “We’ve watched sales dwindle and we’ve watched people be less inclined to spend money on clothes.” To Parker, these are reasons for companies to take particular care with their relationships. “Look, my affection for the dress hasn’t changed,” she said, “but what they did was so short-sighted. It’s just unethical and disappointing that they would allow the dress to be worn again.”