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
Evidence Supported Conviction of Police Officer for Divulging an Eavesdropping Warrant
ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS INVALID BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AWARE OF HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE AND THE JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQURY; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL MISCHIEF AND AUTO STRIPPING WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required Vacation of Award
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT A CIVIL LAWSUIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED; CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE CONTRACT WHETHER DEFENDANT TRUSTEE WAS TO PERFORM A MERELY MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OR A GATEWAY FUNCTION IN ACCEPTING ASSETS FOR THE TRUST FROM A NONPARTY WHICH WAS ACTING FRAUDULENTLY; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DAMAGES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCEPTING NON-NEGOTIABLE ASSETS WERE DIRECT OR INDIRECT AND WHETHER A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS BREACHED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DUCT ON THE FLOOR WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEMOLITION WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 200 DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INSURED AND BROKERS (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...