You are here: / / TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY...

TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, reversing Supreme Court, held that the person who holds title to artwork purchased during the marriage cannot be determined by reference to invoices alone (as Supreme Court had done). The couple purchased art worth millions of dollars. The prenuptial agreement stated that any art not owned jointly by husband and wife would be deemed to belong to the party holding title without reference to the source of the funds for the purchase:

​

An invoice cannot be said to be dispositive of ownership. The purpose of the invoice is not to identify the titled owner. Moreover, there is always the potential unreliability of the information contained on the invoice. For example, for one reason or another, the price of the item(s) purchased may be inflated or deflated or the description of the merchandise or services rendered may be inaccurate or distorted.

The unreliability of an invoice as sole proof of title is evidenced by various invoices in the record before us. The parties concede that some of the invoices are inconsistent on their face, in that the name of the only party listed is not consistent with the name of that party’s account with the auction house of purchase or conflicts with the party to whom the item purchased should have been shipped. For example, the wife points to a jointly acquired and owned Jeff Koons painting, “the Empire State of Scotch, Dewars,” the invoice for which lists only the husband’s name. Anonymous v Anonymous, 2017 NY Slip Op 02613, 1st Dept 4-4-17

 

FAMILY LAW (MARITAL PROPERTY, TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE)/MARITAL PROPERTY (MARITAL PROPERTY, TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE)/EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION  (MARITAL PROPERTY, TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE)/INVOICES (FAMILY LAW, MARITAL PROPERTY, TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE)/ARTWORK (FAMILY LAW, MARITAL PROPERTY, , TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE)/DIVORCE (MARITAL PROPERTY,  TITLE TO ARTWORK PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO INVOICES ALONE)

You might also like
COMPLAINT IN PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WHO CANNOT USE STAIRS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS; 360 OF 427 NYC SUBWAY STATIONS ARE ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY STAIRS (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE “DUAL JURY” PROCEDURE USED TO TRY DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED, AND THE CO-DEFENDANT, WHO WAS ACQUITTED, ALLOWED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY TO ACT AS A SECOND PROSECUTOR; CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT ON DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION AFTER NEW COUNSEL IS ASSIGNED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FAMILY IMPROPERLY EXCLUDED FROM THE COURTROOM, CONVICTION REVERSED.
TO DEPRIVE A PLAINTIFF OF THE SIX-MONTH RECOMMENCEMENT BENEFIT OF CPLR 205(A) THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PATTERN OF NEGLECT, NOT, AS HERE, A SINGLE INSTANCE OF NEGLECT (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT READY FOR TRIAL); THERE WAS A DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
LATE FEES IMPOSED BY THE LANDLORD MAY CONSTITUTE USURIOUS INTEREST; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE PRO SE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL; THE APPEAL RAISED A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-TENANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S STIPULATION WITH THE PRIOR TENANT IN 2000 ILLEGALLY DECONTROLLED THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT FINDING THAT THE... WARRANTS ISSUED TO FACEBOOK UNDER THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT CANNOT BE TREATED...