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
ALLEGED MISHANDLING OF DECEDENT’S BODY BEFORE PLAINTIFF TOOK CUSTODY OF IT SUPPORTED THE RIGHT OF SEPULCHER CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
INTRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S TWO-YEAR-OLD FIREARM CONVICTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT DEFENDANT “OPENED THE DOOR” WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; DEFENDANT HAD NOT QUESTIONED THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT OR THE OFFICER’S CONCLUSION THE BULGE IN DEFENDANT’S POCKET WAS A FIREARM; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE TWO-STEP MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, WHICH DOES NOT SUPPORT INTRODUCTION OF THE PRIOR CONVICTION (FIRST DEPT).
The “Physical Intrusion” by the Police Officer (Tapping the Defendant’s Pocket) Was Not Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime—The Subsequent Frisk of the Defendant Was Similarly Not Justified—The Arrest Was Therefore Invalid–All Seized Items and Statements Made by the Defendant Should Have Been Suppressed
Journalist Deemed “Limited Public Figure.”
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE WET CONDITION OF THE STAIRS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION CONSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LADDER WAS INTENDED FOR USE AS A STAGE PROP BY ACTORS AS OPPOSED TO AN OSHA COMPLIANT LADDER; EVEN WHERE A LABOR LAW 200 ACTION WILL NOT LIE, A COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE VIABLE; HERE IT WAS ALLEGED DEFENDANT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM BY ALTERING THE LADDER (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE.
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED INFLATION OF THE VALUE OF THE BUSINESS PURCHASED BY PLAINTIFF; AND THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL WARRANTIES WHICH DID NOT DUPLICATE THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (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...